Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

It doesn't matter whether you intended it as a joke or not. The point is that if p1) everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence and p2) the universe began to exist, then the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's beginning to exist yields certain consequences. Every day, doing math, science, or just basic living, we use logic to make sense of and interact with our world. Sometimes, logic reveals understandings that sound counter-intuitive to us. For example, Einstein first used logic to come to the belief that gravity could bend light.

Newtonian physics allows for the bending of light by gravity.

It was quite some time later that he was able to find the right math to explain it,

Explain it more accurately.

and he was already convinced that he was correct before non-believers "saw" it with their own "telescopic" eyes.

Experimentation? Demonstrating that he was right? Could he not just assert that he was right?

Even now, some people still refuse to believe it.

Indeed. There are many that still cherry-pick his accomplishments, and the accompanying science, to suit their own purposes.

I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.

Unless you are "God".

I understand. Sometimes the logic and evidence doesn't want to support our preconceived notions about reality. When things like that happen, it can be difficult to adjust our beliefs accordingly.

Particularly if you feel that you are infallible.

So anyway, so far we've agreed on an immaterial,

and material,

omnipotent, uncaused, omniscient, free-causal agent as the cause for the beginning of the universe. I think it was also timeless for reasons I explained earlier.

And temporal, as needed.

By doing so we've been able to trim down the list of possible candidates quite considerably. The logic doesn't point directly to the Christian god, but he certainly possesses all of the characteristic traits we've considered thus far.

When working backwards from an unfalsifiable conclusion, anything you want can point to it.

 

[nonbeliever314]

It doesn't matter whether you intended it as a joke or not. The point is that if p1) everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence and p2) the universe began to exist, then the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's beginning to exist yields certain consequences. Every day, doing math, science, or just basic living, we use logic to make sense of and interact with our world. Sometimes, logic reveals understandings that sound counter-intuitive to us. For example, Einstein first used logic to come to the belief that gravity could bend light. It was quite some time later that he was able to find the right math to explain it, and he was already convinced that he was correct before non-believers "saw" it with their own "telescopic" eyes. Even now, some people still refuse to believe it.

He derived his theory using math. He didn't figure it out, and then translate it into math. Some thought experiments? Yes. But following where the math lead is what he did for the most part.

 

[Joshua260]

He derived his theory using math. He didn't figure it out, and then translate it into math. Some thought experiments? Yes. But following where the math lead is what he did for the most part.

Plainly incorrect. He knew where he was going before applying any math. I have read many books on his theories and he developed the thought experiments first and then found the math to explain it. He was not just playing around with math first and then stumbled on special or even general relativity. The idea formed first, then the math.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Plainly incorrect. He knew where he was going before applying any math. I have read many books on his theories and he developed the thought experiments first and then found the math to explain it. He was not just playing around with math first and then stumbled on special or even general relativity. The idea formed first, then the math.

If that is correct, then I stand corrected.

 

[Achilles6129]

They want to think that everything came from absolutely nothing, and that this is the one and only universe.

That's the most reasonable explanation. As I've said repeatedly on this thread, please explain why your explanation is more reasonable.

 

[Achilles6129]

So this hypothetical god is both material and not material.

At this point you can only be deliberately misunderstanding what's being said. I don't have time to deal with minutiae over and over again when the answer is simple common sense. God is immaterial but is able to manifest himself materially if he so chooses. So he is not "material and immaterial" but rather immaterial and able, if he chooses, to manifest himself materially.

Timeless, and subject to time (can't make decisions or walk-n-talk in the Garden of Eden if you are stuck like a bug in amber).

In this scenario (and I'm not sure if I totally agree with divine timelessness or not) God would be timeless outside of the universe yet temporal within it. William Lane Craig comes to a very similar conclusion in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity...96934&sr=1-1&keywords=william+lane+craig+time

Powerful enough to create universes, but undetectable by any modern means to date.

Undetectable outside of personal experience, yes. I have never claimed otherwise. Anything else would have to be based on reasonable deduction.

Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. If you can falsify the scientific citations linked to in those pages I referenced, feel free to do so. Have you even read them?

It would be better to simply link to the source than to link to Wikipedia as it can be edited by anyone.

Speculation. It could be tiny.

No, it could not. The Creator of the universe is going to have to be powerful enough to create the universe and all the forces it contains: stars, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Even if it all balances out to "zero net energy" it doesn't matter - the fact is that these things display a great deal of energy which the Creator would have to have designed and created and hence have control over.

By what testable criteria do you determine this?

Determine that it would be easier for an intelligent designer to design a car than a tree? Or the universe? I would think that it would be common sense. It's easier for an intelligence to design something than an inanimate object because an intelligence can act with purpose and will and an inanimate object cannot. So it's far easier to posit that God created the universe rather than an inanimate object.

"Why?" may not be a valid question.

Well then, what caused the inanimate object to create the universe at a certain point in time and not sooner? How did the inanimate object create the universe? And what exactly is the inanimate object?

Thousands? Not millions? Billions? Do you accept the standard model of cosmology?

I do not accept the Big Bang Theory, no. I believe in a 6-day creation approx. 6,000 years ago.

What would it look like if it were the product of natural forces?

I would say that it wouldn't be there unless it were the product of an intelligence.

 

[Achilles6129]

Explain to me how an immaterial, disembodied mind can exist without time. If you can posit such an entity, then what's wrong the suggestion that the material could itself exist without time?

God could be timeless, meaning that he's totally outside of time. Or, he could simply have his own time which runs radically different than ours. Here are a few good sources on the issue of divine timelessness:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/divine-timelessness-and-personhood

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/on-t...elessness-from-the-incompleteness-of-temporal

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

As far as your question about material itself existing outside of time, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you asking if matter can exist outside of time, or apart from time? I would think not, since time would be required in order to bring matter into existence.

You still haven't answered my question though: how do you know that the universe was preceded by nothing, which you defined as nothing material and no time. How does that even make sense, given that the term "precede" is temporal?

Let me suggest the following line of reasoning:

1) Time is necessary in order to bring matter into existence
2) Therefore, time is necessary in order for matter to exist
3) Time, as we understand it (in a straight line), could not have existed forever since you can't have an infinite history of past events
4) Therefore, time and matter could not have existed forever
5) There must have been a time when there was no time or matter (from 1-4)

"Precede" would simply refer to the beginning of time (as we understand "time"). What came "before" wouldn't be a question, because we're talking about the beginning of time as we know it. So outside of this beginning of time there would be nothing. Also, as I've said before, time may very well run radically different elsewhere and so the term "precede" could in this case have temporal meaning.

What reason do you have to think that it is impossible for a universe to form through natural processes that are, as yet, poorly understood?

I suppose there's no reason the universe couldn't have formed as part of natural processes, but you're missing the point. The point is that our position is more reasonable than yours

 

[nonbeliever314]

That's the most reasonable explanation. As I've said repeatedly on this thread, please explain why your explanation is more reasonable.

No it's not. Because NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND HOW IT HAPPENED. It's more reasonable to remain open to all the possible answers until more evidence comes along, instead of sticking with one thing you think is right, because if it's not right your God gets flung out the window. If this universe is all there is, and it came from absolute nothingness. Very interesting. If this universe is not the only one or there is more to it than just popping into existence from nothing. Very interesting as well.

 

[Davian]

At this point you can only be deliberately misunderstanding what's being said. I don't have time to deal with minutiae over and over again when the answer is simple common sense.

Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat and the cosmos rotates around us.

Rotating Stars

• Davian
• May 26, 2014

Australian Astronomical Observatory

God is immaterial but is able to manifest himself materially if he so chooses. So he is not "material and immaterial" but rather immaterial and able, if he chooses, to manifest himself materially.

Special pleading all the way. You do realize that this is a fallacy, do you not?

In this scenario (and I'm not sure if I totally agree with divine timelessness or not) God would be timeless outside of the universe yet temporal within it. William Lane Craig comes to a very similar conclusion in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity...96934&sr=1-1&keywords=william+lane+craig+time

Why should I care what Craig says?

Undetectable outside of personal experience, yes.

Are your personal experiences infallible? Can you use them to detect Bigfoot? Aliens? ghosts?

I have never claimed otherwise. Anything else would have to be based on reasonable deduction.

Are you now the arbiter of what is "reasonable"?

It would be better to simply link to the source than to link to Wikipedia as it can be edited by anyone.

I did not think you had read the material, as evidenced in your next paragraph.

Would you debate the intricacies of the Bible with someone that has not bothered to read it?

No, it could not. The Creator of the universe is going to have to be powerful enough to create the universe and all the forces it contains: stars, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Even if it all balances out to "zero net energy" it doesn't matter - the fact is that these things display a great deal of energy which the Creator would have to have designed and created and hence have control over.

If I borrow a thousand dollars, and put it a savings account, how much did that cost me, and what is the net worth of the loan and saving account combined? How powerful did I need to be to accomplish that?

Determine that it would be easier for an intelligent designer to design a car than a tree? Or the universe? I would think that it would be common sense.

Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat and the cosmos rotates around us.

Rotating Stars

• Davian
• May 26, 2014

Australian Astronomical Observatory

I asked for testable criteria; have you anything?

It's easier for an intelligence to design something than an inanimate object

Who said inanimate?

because an intelligence can act with purpose and will and an inanimate object cannot. So it's far easier to posit that God created the universe rather than an inanimate object.

False dichotomy.

Well then, what caused the inanimate object to create the universe at a certain point in time and not sooner?

How long does a timeless and eternal "god" wait prior to creating a universe?

How did the inanimate object create the universe?

How does a "god" create a universe?

And what exactly is the inanimate object?

What exactly is a "god"?

Do you not see the hole you have dug for yourself?

I do not accept the Big Bang Theory, no. I believe in a 6-day creation approx. 6,000 years ago.

So you do not agree with WLC or modern science, yet happily cherry-pick from both.

I would say that it wouldn't be there unless it were the product of an intelligence.

Yet without access to other universes, we have no way of knowing, so you can only speculate.

Consider me sceptical of your speculation.

 

[Joshua260]

No it's not. Because NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND HOW IT HAPPENED. It's more reasonable to remain open to all the possible answers until more evidence comes along...

If I may break in, I don't think Achilles is saying that believing in God is more reasonable as in "practical" (although I think we could make that case also), but I think he means in this context that it is more reasonable to believe in God, because it is more "rational" (I agree with him).

 

[nonbeliever314]

If I may break in, I think Achilles is not saying that believing in God is more reasonable as in "practical" (although I think we could make that case also), but I think he means in this context that it is more reasonable to believe in God, because it is more "rational" (I agree with him).

Please respond to this: #966

 

[Joshua260]

Please respond to this: #966

You really need to print it out so it can be read. It's difficult to read.

So it looks like in your math that you're saying that there has to be an outside because you can imagine a larger linear vector than 14 billion light years. That sounds like Platonism to me. Just because you can count higher than 14 billion, that doesn't mean that vector length actually exists in reality.

So, here's my first attempt to provide a critique as requested. Am I misunderstanding you argument in some way? Do you need to explain it better?

 

[nonbeliever314]

You really need to print it out so it can be read. It's difficult to read.

So it looks like in your math that you're saying that there has to be an outside because you can imagine a larger linear vector than 14 billion light years. That sounds like Platonism to me. Just because you can count higher than 14 billion, that doesn't mean that vector length actually exists in reality.

So, here's my first attempt to provide a critique as requested. Am I misunderstanding you argument in some way? Do you need to explain it better?

Nope. Not even close. I guess I'll type it up. At no point did I mention a very long vector, I was talking about a simple vector space. I'll make it more concise if I can, that's about as simple as I could have made it though.

 

[nonbeliever314]

You really need to print it out so it can be read. It's difficult to read.

So it looks like in your math that you're saying that there has to be an outside because you can imagine a larger linear vector than 14 billion light years. That sounds like Platonism to me. Just because you can count higher than 14 billion, that doesn't mean that vector length actually exists in reality.

So, here's my first attempt to provide a critique as requested. Am I misunderstanding you argument in some way? Do you need to explain it better?

Do you think the universe is self- contained in some form or another?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God could be timeless, meaning that he's totally outside of time. Or, he could simply have his own time which runs radically different than ours. Here are a few good sources on the issue of divine timelessness:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/divine-timelessness-and-personhood

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/on-t...elessness-from-the-incompleteness-of-temporal

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

As far as your question about material itself existing outside of time, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you asking if matter can exist outside of time, or apart from time? I would think not, since time would be required in order to bring matter into existence.

So you are saying that intelligence is capable of existing sans space and time, but that matter and energy is not? How did you reach this conclusion?

Let me suggest the following line of reasoning:

1) Time is necessary in order to bring matter into existence
2) Therefore, time is necessary in order for matter to exist
3) Time, as we understand it (in a straight line), could not have existed forever since you can't have an infinite history of past events
4) Therefore, time and matter could not have existed forever
5) There must have been a time when there was no time or matter (from 1-4)

This does not appear to follow, for a number of reasons. First, isn't time also necessary to bring intelligence into being? Given that cognitive processes such as decision-making unfold over time, isn't time also necessary for intelligence to function? Second, what leads you conclude that time is necessary for matter to exist? If intelligence can exist atemporally, then why can't matter? Third, if the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time then one could argue that matter has always existed, in the sense that there was no time in which matter did not exist.

I suppose there's no reason the universe couldn't have formed as part of natural processes, but you're missing the point. The point is that our position is more reasonable than yours

Not from what I've seen.

 

[Davian]

If I may break in, I don't think Achilles is saying that believing in God is more reasonable as in "practical" (although I think we could make that case also), but I think he means in this context that it is more reasonable to believe in God, because it is more "rational" (I agree with him).

Perhaps you are confusing "rational" with "rationalization".

"In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning." wiki

 

[Joshua260]

Do you think the universe is self- contained in some form or another?

I believe the universe is all of space and contains everything temporal and material. Go on...

 

[KCfromNC]

I suppose there's no reason the universe couldn't have formed as part of natural processes, but you're missing the point. The point is that our position is more reasonable than yours

I'd be more incline to believe you if the "reasonable" cause for this didn't look like it was fabricated out of thin air. As I've said before, at least we have evidence that natural processes exist. Not so much for gods magicking universes into existence.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I believe the universe is all of space and contains everything temporal and material. Go on...

So to put it in simpler terms. The universe is all of space-time and matter/energy, is that a fair translation of what you said? I'll move on after we agree on this part.

 

[Joshua260]

So to put it in simpler terms. The universe is all of space-time and matter/energy, is that a fair translation of what you said? I'll move on after we agree on this part.

I wouldn't say it quite like that. I could modify what I said before a little with the following: The universe is all of space and contains everything temporal and material/energy. As physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler wrote, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo".