Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[nonbeliever314]

Yes, I can understand when logic doesn't support one's preconceived notions about reality. I noticed a similar reaction in some people who still defiantly believe that OJ was innocent.

That's definitely not the case.

 

[nonbeliever314]

...and time is simply a sequence of events one occurring after the other.

There is no "master clock" for the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

Experimentally Proven: Time "ticks" slower in a strong gravitational field. (Especially important in relation to time's direct relationship to space)
Experimentally Proven: Space-time is "dragged" in the presence of a massive rotating object. Frame dragging.

I could go on....

I hate to say it like this, but duh!
But just because you can show that's there is a relationship between two parameters, that does not prove that the two entities in question are two forms of the same thing.

What part is not material?

The soul. And no, I don't want to get sidetracked about proving the existence of a soul because this thread is about the best argument for God's existence, so I'd like to stay on topic with the KCA.

 

[Joshua260]

There is no "master clock" for the universe.

Plainly incorrect again. When we're talking about the age of the universe, there is a universal time since the beginning and scientists claim it is 13.7 billions years old. But of course, we can talk about how time (the rate of events happening after the next) is slower near a black hole than elsewhere. BTW, I get where you're coming from on that. I was so in-depth with relativity that it fooled me also when I was younger.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not at all. Spacetime is just a convenient way of thinking about time and space where you can plot a thing's existence through space over time. Just because there is a relationship depicted on a chart, it doesn't prove that they (space and time) are two forms of the same thing. Space is the framework of our universe and time is simply a sequence of events one occurring after the other. Time and space are distinct.

Didn't you say that you took a course in physics? In which case shouldn't you know better?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The soul. And no, I don't want to get sidetracked about proving the existence of a soul because this thread is about the best argument for God's existence, so I'd like to stay on topic with the KCA.

Given that your conclusion depends on mind-body dualism being tenable, this is on topic.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Plainly incorrect again. When we're talking about the age of the universe, there is a universal time since the beginning and scientists claim it is 13.7 billions years old. But of course, we can talk about how time (the rate of events happening after the next) is slower near a black hole than elsewhere. BTW, I get where you're coming from on that. I was so in-depth with relativity that it fooled me also when I was younger.

What is the age of the universe measured relative to? Just because the universe has an age we've calculated considering the Earth is relatively stationary, doesn't mean at all that there is some absolute master clock ticking off time. The black hole is a good point too. [EDIT: (Yes, I make mistakes) I have identical clocks that tick off time and add it to the calculated age of the universe. Initially they both read 13.7 billion years old. Say, I take one to the event horizon of a black hole where time is slowed down drastically, and leave one far away from the black hole so the time ticks off at a rate equivalent to what we experience on Earth. The clock at the event horizon sits there for a significant amount of time, and then I gather up both clocks and compare. What would I see? The clock away from the black hole displays an older age for the universe, say +10000 years. The clock that was at the event horizon shows say +100 years. What's the age of the universe now? END EDIT] (PS. I'm not actually doing any calculations, just making a point)

 

[nonbeliever314]

I hate to say it like this, but duh!
But just because you can show that's there is a relationship between two parameters, that does not prove that the two entities in question are two forms of the same thing.

So are you implying that mass and energy are not different sides of same coin as well? After all, that's just a "relationship", E = mc^2. Oh, and electricity and magnetism too.

Maybe I should've been a little more specific. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Davian]

At this point I've explained what I'm saying several times now. Unless someone has something new to add (and judging from the responses, they don't)

There was post # 1086, if you missed it. Or did your common sense tell you not to attempt it?

we're just going to keep going around in circles.

That would be just you as Joshua. I am only here to observe and comment.

So there really is no point to continuing the conversation further.

Indeed, if you are just going to evade the objections put forth, and won't familiarize yourself with the cosmology concepts you been citing.

Anyways, here are a couple of interesting links to the teleological argument:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-teleological-argument-and-the-anthropic-principle

The teleological argument, I think, is ultimately a better argument for the existence of God than the cosmological argument,

Did either of them convince you of the existence of gods?

but it does take more time to develop and one can't be very intellectually lazy. The cosmological argument is much simpler and easier to present. It's also strong; but not as strong, it my judgment, as the teleological argument.

From the conclusion on the Stanford page: "Perception..."

It looks designed - everything looks designed apparently - so it must be designed. It's common sense! Whatever that means.

"... and appreciation of the incredible intricacy and the beauty of things in nature—whether biological or cosmic—has certainly inclined many toward thoughts of purpose and design in nature, and has constituted important moments of affirmation for those who already accept design positions."

Great. Another argument that is only convincing to those already convinced.

 

[Joshua260]

What is the age of the universe measured relative to? Just because the universe has an age we've calculated considering the Earth is relatively stationary, doesn't mean at all that there is some absolute master clock ticking off time. The black hole is a good point too. [EDIT: (Yes, I make mistakes) I have identical clocks that tick off time and add it to the calculated age of the universe. Initially they both read 13.7 billion years old. Say, I take one to the event horizon of a black hole where time is slowed down drastically, and leave one far away from the black hole so the time ticks off at a rate equivalent to what we experience on Earth. The clock at the event horizon sits there for a significant amount of time, and then I gather up both clocks and compare. What would I see? The clock away from the black hole displays an older age for the universe, say +10000 years. The clock that was at the event horizon shows say +100 years. What's the age of the universe now? END EDIT] (PS. I'm not actually doing any calculations, just making a point)

I see that you caught your mistake. That's fine. I make them too. But we got off on a rabbit trail. My statement was that time is a sequence of events which follow each other and that still holds.

 

[Joshua260]

So are you implying that mass and energy are not different sides of same coin as well? After all, that's just a "relationship", E = mc^2.

Of course I'm not implying that. But just because you find a relationship between two parameters, that does not prove they are two forms of the same thing. It only demonstrates that there is a relationship between the two, as in space and time.

So I don't see where we're getting anywhere now. You agreed with many of the characteristics of the cause of the universe but decided not to continue that discussion and I guess you were going to show me a proof that the KCA was wrong but it doesn't look like I'm going to see that now.

It sees to me like the KCA has held it's own just fine. I feel like moving on to other subjects now. If anything significant shows up on this thread concerning the KCA, I may or may not reply. Have a good day.

 

[The Cadet]

Of course I'm not implying that. But just because you find a relationship between two parameters, that does not prove they are two forms of the same thing. It only demonstrates that there is a relationship between the two, as in space and time.

So I don't see where we're getting anywhere now. You agreed with many of the characteristics of the cause of the universe but decided not to continue that discussion and I guess you were going to show me a proof that the KCA was wrong but it doesn't look like I'm going to see that now.

It sees to me like the KCA has held it's own just fine. I feel like moving on to other subjects now. If anything significant shows up on this thread concerning the KCA, I may or may not reply. Have a good day.

Just... One... Quick... Question.

What's up with this? No, seriously, the claim behind the Kalam Cosmological Argument essential boils down to "Cosmology proves God must exist". So why in the world are cosmologists so darn unlikely to believe in god? Have they not heard of the KCA? I somehow doubt it; after all, Craig is essentially hijacking their discipline for the cause of his faith.

May I posit, just for a moment, that the reason cosmologists are unlikely to believe in God despite Craig's best efforts is the same reason that Quantum Physicists are unlikely to believe in disembodied consciousness despite Deepak Chopra's best efforts? That it's, at best, a bastardization of what the science actually has to say?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just... One... Quick... Question.

What's up with this? No, seriously, the claim behind the Kalam Cosmological Argument essential boils down to "Cosmology proves God must exist". So why in the world are cosmologists so darn unlikely to believe in god? Have they not heard of the KCA? I somehow doubt it; after all, Craig is essentially hijacking their discipline for the cause of his faith.

May I posit, just for a moment, that the reason cosmologists are unlikely to believe in God despite Craig's best efforts is the same reason that Quantum Physicists are unlikely to believe in disembodied consciousness despite Deepak Chopra's best efforts? That it's, at best, a bastardization of what the science actually has to say?

It's fascinating that the argument borrows heavily from the findings of a discipline in which most of the experts are nonbelievers. Of course the lazy response is that pride is what prevents them from seeing the truth!

 

[nonbeliever314]

Should we raise the victory flag?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Of course I'm not implying that. But just because you find a relationship between two parameters, that does not prove they are two forms of the same thing. It only demonstrates that there is a relationship between the two, as in space and time.

So I don't see where we're getting anywhere now. You agreed with many of the characteristics of the cause of the universe but decided not to continue that discussion and I guess you were going to show me a proof that the KCA was wrong but it doesn't look like I'm going to see that now.

It sees to me like the KCA has held it's own just fine. I feel like moving on to other subjects now. If anything significant shows up on this thread concerning the KCA, I may or may not reply. Have a good day.

Take care sir.

 

[TillICollapse]

Should we raise the victory flag?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I wish there was some sort of test to see if the person you're debating with is intelligent enough, and intellectually honest enough, to see the faults in their arguments and change their minds. It would save a lot of time...

 

[TillICollapse]

I wish there was some sort of test to see if the person you're debating with is intelligent enough, and intellectually honest enough, to see the faults in their arguments and change their minds. It would save a lot of time...

I was going to respond with a quick quip, but your statement might actually make for an interesting thread. In what ways can you discern and/or test whether or not a person you are communicating with is capable of critical and intellectually honest thought and reasoning ? Hmm.

 

[Joshua260]

I wish there was some sort of test to see if the person you're debating with is intelligent enough, and intellectually honest enough, to see the faults in their arguments and change their minds. It would save a lot of time...

Instead of being condescending and rude, how about showing where the KCA (as shown below) fails to show that the universe probably had a cause?

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

 

[Joshua260]

Just... One... Quick... Question.

What's up with this? No, seriously, the claim behind the Kalam Cosmological Argument essential boils down to "Cosmology proves God must exist". So why in the world are cosmologists so darn unlikely to believe in god? Have they not heard of the KCA? I somehow doubt it; after all, Craig is essentially hijacking their discipline for the cause of his faith.

May I posit, just for a moment, that the reason cosmologists are unlikely to believe in God despite Craig's best efforts is the same reason that Quantum Physicists are unlikely to believe in disembodied consciousness despite Deepak Chopra's best efforts? That it's, at best, a bastardization of what the science actually has to say?

I think you mischaracterize our claim about the KCA. The KCA claims to show that the universe probably had a cause for it's existence, and when we extrapolate the characteristic traits of that cause, one finds that not only can we rule out suggestions like Santa Clause, the Tooth fairy, the FSM, and so forth, but also that it narrows down the possible causes to a short list which happens to include the Christian god.

I can't speak for why some people refuse to accept the implications of logical arguments and evidence. For example, some people refuse to believe that OJ is guilty, that the Holocaust actually happened, or even that we landed on the moon. Do you think it's only due to a lack of evidence?