Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[ToddNotTodd]

So you're saying that if something else exists besides God that doesn't have a cause then that would invalidate the existence of God....?

Nope. I said that special pleading would invalidate the argument, because if a premise relies on a logical fallacy it isn't sound.

 

[Achilles6129]

Nope. I said that special pleading would invalidate the argument, because if a premise relies on a logical fallacy it isn't sound.

OK. And how would something else (other than God) existing without a cause invalidate the argument and be a logical fallacy?

 

[stevenfrancis]

Hello all,

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

Without getting too deep, I always thought the best argument that deists have is love. Conversely the best argument against is suffering. Suffering can be answered from a believer to a believer, but they're not going to be a believer in order to hear the argument FOR God in suffering unless they believe God exists in the first place. It's an unsolvable argument for a non-believer, so in order to understand the answer to suffering, which is the best argument against God, one must believe in God in the first place. Faith is a gift to those who ask for it. It is a gift of love. God is love. And all who live in love, live in God. Hey....is that fresh coffee I smell. mmmmmmm. Gotta go.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

OK. And how would something else (other than God) existing without a cause invalidate the argument and be a logical fallacy?

I didn't say that either. I'm saying that special pleading would invalidate the argument.

 

[Joshua260]

Your God is off limits, huh?

I've had several requests to talk about God and how he relates to the KCA. I would gladly participate in that conversation but unfortunately, nonbeliever314 started off with a terrible misquote of Craig's argument, so we've got to iron that out first.

The basic KCA is:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

So far, I've not seen one good objection to this argument. It would be impractical to begin discussing how God may relate to this argument until one of you comes to grips with the reality that:

the beginning of the space-time universe probably did have a cause for it beginning to exist.

Is there any atheist here willing to step up and concur with that probability? If so, then I would gladly move on to discussing how God relates to KCA. But if not, then we've still got some foundational work to do.

 

[TillICollapse]

Is there any atheist here willing to step up and concur with that probability?

So are you now targeting atheists only ? Or was that your target all along ?

 

[Joshua260]

You know exactly what I mean.

I honestly don't. I'll review...

You said: "If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then wouldn't everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence? "

and I replied that "I don't see how that follows". So I don't understand what your objection is here. I'll clarify my response for you:

I don't see how...
"then wouldn't everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence?"
...logically follows from...
"everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence".

So if everything also includes god, then according to p1 god has a cause for his existence.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.

You are incorrect. You keep skipping the adjective phrase that makes the distinction.

Here's an analogy:
1. "All M&Ms" is the full set considered. (Everything that exists)
2. A subset of "all M&Ms" is all M&Ms that are green. (Everything that begins to exist)
3. Another subset of "all M&Ms" is all non-green M&Ms. (Everything that does not begin to exist).

In p1, we are considering the ontology of subset #2. Everything that begins to exist.

Yes, the KCA is a good argument for the existence God. But the basic KCA only addresses whether or not the universe had a cause for it beginning to exist. It is only after we consider the possible cause for the universe beginning to exist that we can begin to consider the Christian god as a possible candidate for that cause. For example, I've heard people suggest that the cause could have been the FSM or the "Eternal Flame". Fine, we can get to those after we hammer out the basic argument. Let not skip logical steps, but rather, let's go through the basic KCA logic and see where it leads us.

 

[Joshua260]

So are you now targeting atheists only ? Or was that your target all along ?

That's a silly remark. It's only the atheists that seem to be disputing me.

 

[TillICollapse]

It's only the atheists that seem to be disputing me.

Only the atheists are disputing you ? AFAIK, I'm not an atheist and I've disputed you. From what I understand, so have others who don't self-identify as atheist also disputed you in this thread.

 

[Joshua260]

Only the atheists are disputing you ? AFAIK, I'm not an atheist and I've disputed you. From what I understand, so have others who don't self-identify as atheist also disputed you in this thread.

I didn't see a faith designation. So you believe in God?

 

[TillICollapse]

I didn't see a faith designation. So you believe in God?

As a side note, if it were up to me, there would be no "faith designation". I think it would make conversations much more interesting and revealing.

Define what you mean by "God" and I may tell you whether or not I believe in what you define and describe.

 

[Joshua260]

As a side note, if it were up to me, there would be no "faith designation". I think it would make conversations much more interesting and revealing.

Define what you mean by "God" and I may tell you whether or not I believe in what you define and describe.

nervermind. I don't want to get drawn off topic. I'll wait for one of the responders who openly claim that they do not believe in my god and also have been disputing me in this thread regarding the KCA to respond.

 

[nonbeliever314]

The universe most likely had a beginning, but it might not have either. Great. If the universe had a beginning, then I claim that a fire breathing dragon let out a breath and the universe came to be. This dragon always existed. Seriously.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe 'began' to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.

This dragon that created the universe did not "begin to exist". He's exempt from everything that began to exist.

The End.

 

[TillICollapse]

nervermind. I don't want to get drawn off topic. I'll wait for one of the responders who openly claim that they do not believe in my god and also have been disputing me in this thread regarding the KCA to respond.

So you are "targeting" specific people. Got it.

 

[Joshua260]

The universe most likely had a beginning, but it might not have either. Great. If the universe had a beginning, then I claim that a fire breathing dragon let out a breath and the universe came to be. This dragon always existed. Seriously.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe 'began' to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.

This dragon that created the universe did not "begin to exist". He's exempt from everything that began to exist.

The End.

Mmmm. I'm finding this one unlikely. If there is such a thing as a dragon, he would have a body and might have wings. I'm also not seeing where he got the fire from. Fire requires some air, fuel, and an ignition source. If the universe had not been created yet, I don't see how all these material things could have existed. To submit that something material could have created the material universe is incoherent, since the material would have had to exist in order to create itself.

 

[Joshua260]

So you are "targeting" specific people. Got it.

again, silly. I'm asking the people who claimed that my god did not exist and also disputed the KCA. Why would I ask people who believe in God and agree with the KCA?

 

[nonbeliever314]

I understand and admit the universe most likely had beginning. That doesn't mean a god did it. And it doesn't mean this universe is the only thing there is.

I don't need KCA to convince me the universe probably had a beginning. The part where your God comes in is where I need convincing. So you can stop arguing that the universe had a beginning. Get to the other part already, about how the thing in category 2 that didn't "begin to exist" created the universe. We can move on from the "basic KCA" now.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Mmmm. I'm finding this one unlikely. If there is such a thing as a dragon, he would have a body and might have wings. I'm also not seeing where he got the fire from. Fire requires some air, fuel, and an ignition source. If the universe had not been created yet, I don't see how all these material things could have existed. To submit that something material could have created the material universe is incoherent, since the material would have had to exist in order to create itself.

Oh, he's immaterial, and his fire can do anything. He only appears as a dragon when he comes to me. That's the only way I can describe him.

 

[TillICollapse]

again, silly. I'm asking the people who claimed that my god did not exist and also disputed the KCA. Why would I ask people who believe in God and agree with the KCA?

Yes I can see what your opinion of what is "silly" as well as what is "rock solid" is.

 

[quatona]

again, silly. I'm asking the people who claimed that my god did not exist and also disputed the KCA. Why would I ask people who believe in God and agree with the KCA?

What about people who beiieve in a God and don´t agree that the KCA is a good argument for a God´s existence (IOW people who don´t let their personal beliefs get in the way of their grasp on logic)?