Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[KCfromNC]

2. The universe began to exist.

You keep coming back to this premise even after admitting you actually believe something different. You have plainly said that this statement should be something about it being plausible or conceivable that the universe began to exist. Why the bait and switch to an absolute statement?

 

[KCfromNC]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread.

Joshua quoted experts which disagree with his premise #2. What more do you need?

 

[KCfromNC]

I would love to see the justification for either of those premises. "Chance, necessity, or design" is not a true trichotomy in any meaningful sense; while I cannot think of an alternative

Deterministic unguided processes, just like most of the stuff which makes things happen here in our universe?

 

[Davian]

I don't remember saying that I didn't subscribe to the standard model.

It's in your profile.

I don't mind discussion, but I like to stay on topic and not stray after rabbit trails.

You are building your arguments on rabbit holes.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't remember saying that I didn't subscribe to the standard model. I don't mind discussion, but I like to stay on topic and not stray after rabbit trails.

How could you subscribe to the standard model, if you are a self declared YEC?

I mean, even Willy Craig states anyone who believes in a young earth, is dead wrong.

 

[nonbeliever314]

How could you subscribe to the standard model, if you are a self declared YEC?

I mean, even Willy Craig states anyone who believes in a young earth, is dead wrong.

Willy Craig. Seriously lol'ing right now.

 

[Achilles6129]

You're right, Achilles. The KCA has held up just fine on this thread and I wouldn't mind exploring the teleological argument myself. As I recall it goes something like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Is that about right, Achilles?

That's certainly Dr. Craig's version. The route I would pursue would have more to do with features of design we can directly observe that aren't necessary for life, however, not the fine-tuning version. I think that the fact that if the universe weren't fine-tuned for life we wouldn't be here to observe it is a powerful enough rejoinder to abandon the argument altogether.

 

[Achilles6129]

Here's one: "The cosmologists whose research we rely on to back up the premises do not find the argument convincing". Given that Craig is not a trained cosmologist, I consider this absolutely sufficient.

....and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the argument is correct. Probably over half of scientists (maybe even more) are atheists anyway. We're not going off of what someone's personal opinions are, we're going off of what's reasonable to believe.

In addition, I don't believe there's any "research" necessary to figure out that time had a beginning and therefore so did matter. I demonstrated this on this thread. So I haven't relied on the "research" of any cosmologist whatsoever, making their opinions doubly irrelevant.

 

[nonbeliever314]

....and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the argument is correct. Probably over half of scientists (maybe even more) are atheists anyway. We're not going off of what someone's personal opinions are, we're going off of what's reasonable to believe.

In addition, I don't believe there's any "research" necessary to figure out that time had a beginning and therefore so did matter. I demonstrated this on this thread. So I haven't relied on the "research" of any cosmologist whatsoever, making their opinions doubly irrelevant.

It was "research" that helped us discover the Big Bang. Which you need for a cosmological argument.

 

[Achilles6129]

It was "research" that helped us discover the Big Bang. Which you need for a cosmological argument.

Don't need the Big Bang at all for the KCA.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Don't need the Big Bang at all for the KCA.

How so?

 

[TillICollapse]

....and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the argument is correct. Probably over half of scientists (maybe even more) are atheists anyway. We're not going off of what someone's personal opinions are, we're going off of what's reasonable to believe.

In addition, I don't believe there's any "research" necessary to figure out that time had a beginning and therefore so did matter. I demonstrated this on this thread. So I haven't relied on the "research" of any cosmologist whatsoever, making their opinions doubly irrelevant.

Please explain the beginning of time.

 

[Achilles6129]

How so?

Nothing about the Big Bang in the KCA. Universe could have been created by some other means (like in 6 days 6,000 years ago) and KCA would work just fine.

 

[Achilles6129]

Please explain the beginning of time.

Already explained how time couldn't have been around forever and the most reasonable cause is an intelligence.

Anyways, did everyone want to discuss the teleological argument on this thread or on the other thread?

 

[TillICollapse]

Already explained how time couldn't have been around forever and the most reasonable cause is an intelligence.

I'm aware of infinite causal regress arguments and whatnot, if that's what you're referring to with the first part of your sentence ... I wasn't asking about why you believed "time couldn't be around forever". You said you didn't need any research to figure out time had a beginning, and that you demonstrated that on this thread. So can you explain the beginning of time ? If you're going to say, "It was probably caused by an intelligence," then that's not really saying anything. More details would be preferred. Such as, what were the events involved in the beginning of time ? How did it play out ? What did it look like, need to exist, etc ? What did the intelligence do in order to bring time into beginning ?

 

[Achilles6129]

That's been being discussed on this thread for awhile now, and I think we've all agreed to move on. I was going to focus on the teleological argument and ask if everyone would prefer this thread or the other one (started by Joshua).

 

[The Cadet]

....and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the argument is correct.

Actually, it does. Various people have challenged both premises of the KCA, and Craig's response is to fall back on astrophysics. But most astrophysicists disagree with him! Most of them do not believe in any sort of god! Given that Craig has no formal training in any field of physics or cosmology, this is a major problem!

Probably over half of scientists (maybe even more) are atheists anyway.

And once again, we go with poisoning the well. These people whose job it is to understand their field somehow deny it for reasons purely based in bias? I don't think so, especially given that at least two high-level astrophysicists have pointed out the numerous problems with the KCA!

We're not going off of what someone's personal opinions are, we're going off of what's reasonable to believe.

Do you understand quantum physics? No? I don't either, and I don't think William Lane Craig does either (particularly given that his scientific background is astoundingly weak in other fields, such as molecular biology, which he sees fit to hold court on). So we're stuck with the question "what do the actual experts in the field have to say?"

In addition, I don't believe there's any "research" necessary to figure out that time had a beginning

What a facile and baseless claim.

 

[Davian]

How could you subscribe to the standard model, if you are a self declared YEC?

I mean, even Willy Craig states anyone who believes in a young earth, is dead wrong.

Same for how long ago the process of life began on this planet and its subsequent evolution. It is funny to see a YEC apologist - I mean, a couple of YEC apologists - try to cherry-pick his material. That certainly does it no favours.

 

[Davian]

That's certainly Dr. Craig's version. The route I would pursue would have more to do with features of design we can directly observe that aren't necessary for life, however, not the fine-tuning version. I think that the fact that if the universe weren't fine-tuned for life we wouldn't be here to observe it is a powerful enough rejoinder to abandon the argument altogether.

What is this tuning that you are alluding to? Are you arguing that the constants are constant? or that some "god" has to fiddle with the dials to get it right?

 

[Davian]

Nothing about the Big Bang in the KCA. Universe could have been created by some other means (like in 6 days 6,000 years ago) and KCA would work just fine.

I agree that the big bang theory is not about origins; what is hypocritical is cherry picking modern cosmology theories to prop your KCA while simultaneous holding the position that modern cosmology is all wrong.

I also do not need the big bang to support Last Thursdayism.

Which, of course, is heretical; the universe was created last Tuesday.