Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

....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.

Premise 2 draws on cosmology for support, so cosmology is relevant and cosmologists are needed to help examine whether the premise is supported or not.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm not sure if "argument" really sums it up. I never was that convinced by paperwork formulae. Faith is more of an attitude and lifestyle, a coherentist approach that is better for me. Faith is the shaking of a hand, listening to good advice, staying away from harms reach, helping the poor and being helped by others, moments of "spirituality" in prayer etc rather than a logical premise and conclusion style scenario. Its also risking execution, crucifiction, compulsion in faith etc. But in the West I am free enough.

 

[The Cadet]

Premise 2 draws on cosmology for support, so cosmology is relevant and cosmologists are needed to help examine whether the premise is supported or not.

Also, premise 1 draws on physics, so again, astrophysicists are of quite a bit of use.

 

[Joshua260]

Also, premise 1 draws on physics, so again, astrophysicists are of quite a bit of use.

P1 is supported by everyday experience and the scientific method. Whenever we see some effect, we look for, and expect, to find a cause. That is how we do science.
P2 is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific discoveries that relate to the expanding universe. Also, notable scientists agree that the universe probably had a beginning, such as Hawking, Velenkin, and there's a long list of others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

P1 is supported by everyday experience and the scientific method. Whenever we see some effect, we look for, and expect, to find a cause. That is how we do science.

As I said to you earlier, although you gesture toward our experience as support for the first premise, your use of the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist' departs significantly from the understanding of causality we derive from experience. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist' you mean the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then you cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.

P2 is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific discoveries that relate to the expanding universe. Also, notable scientists agree that the universe probably had a beginning, such as Hawking, Velenkin, and there's a long list of others.

As I said to you earlier, it seems that you have performed a sleight of hand. In support of the second premise, you've gestured toward relevant findings in cosmology. However, those findings support only one particular interpretation of the premise; namely, that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. What happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is presently unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form. The findings you draw on do not necessarily imply that the universe - matter and energy - came to be from nothing, which is what you take the second premise to mean.

To quote Alan Guth in The Inflationary Universe (p. 2):

While there are many questions about the universe that cosmologists would like to answer, probably the most fascinating is the most fundamental question of all: Where did all this come from? Almost every human civilization in history has offered an answer to this question in the context of mythology or religion, but until recently the question had been thought to be outside the scope of science. Although the generally accepted big bang theory holds that the observable universe emerged from an explosion some ten to twenty billion years ago, the theory nonetheless assumes that all the matter in the universe was present from the start. The form of the matter may have been different, but it was all there. The classic big bang theory describes the aftermath of the bang, but makes no attempt to describe what "banged," how it "banged," or what caused it to "bang."

 

[Joshua260]

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?

This premise is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific evidences. But did anyone see it happen? No. And that's why we say that it's more plausibly true than not. Theres a long list of scientists who believe the universe had a beginning. If you don't agree, maybe you should take it up with them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This premise is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific evidences. But did anyone see it happen? No. And that's why we say that it's more plausibly true than not.

Define 'beginning,' Joshua. Did you see the debate between Jeremy E Walker and cjlr that I linked to earlier? How far did Walker get without defining his terms?

Theres a long list of scientists who believe the universe had a beginning. If you don't agree, maybe you should take it up with them.

That point is far from settled, as Sean Carroll noted in his debate with Craig:

On my part, I knew that WLC liked to glide from the BGV theorem (which says that classical spacetime description fails in the past) to the stronger statement that the universe probably had a beginning, even though the latter is not implied by the former. And his favorite weapon is to use quotes from Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem. So I talked to Alan Guth, and he was gracious enough to agree to let me take pictures of him holding up signs with his perspective: namely, that the universe probablydidn’t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal. Now, why would an author of the BGV theorem say such a thing? For exactly the reasons I was giving all along: the theorem says nothing definitive about the real universe, it is only a constraint on the classical regime. What matters are models, not theorems, and different scientists will quite naturally have different opinions about which types of models are most likely to prove fruitful once we understand things better. In Vilenkin’s opinion, the best models (in terms of being well-defined and accounting for the data) are ones with a beginning. In Guth’s opinion, the best models are ones that are eternal. And they are welcome to disagree, because we don’t know the answer! Not knowing the answer is perfectly fine. What’s not fine is pretending that we do know the answer, and using that pretend-knowledge to draw premature theological conclusions. (Chatter on Twitter reveals theists scrambling to find previous examples of Guth saying the universe probably had a beginning. As far as I can tell Alan was there talking about inflation beginning, not the universe, which is completely different. But it doesn’t matter; good scientists, it turns out, will actually change their minds in response to thinking about things.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm still waiting for @Joshua260 to indicate whether he believes intelligence begins to exist.

 

[The Cadet]

P1 is supported by everyday experience and the scientific method. Whenever we see some effect, we look for, and expect, to find a cause. That is how we do science.

And, as Sean Carroll pointed out, this aristotelian view of causality was cutting-edge stuff... Some 2,500 years ago. The world we experience in everyday parlance simply falls apart at the borders of our understanding - the very small and the very high-energy. Causality as we know it at the macro level may simply not apply at the micro level, and modern science has updated what it takes into account under causality anyways.

P2 is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific discoveries that relate to the expanding universe. Also, notable scientists agree that the universe probably had a beginning, such as Hawking, Velenkin, and there's a long list of others.

So how many of those scientists agree with the Kalam cosmological argument? Hawking doesn't, I know that much, and most cosmologists clearly either have not heard it or do not find it convincing.

 

[KCfromNC]

P1 is supported by everyday experience

You experience new universes coming into existence in your everyday experience?

P2 is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific discoveries

But disputed by other experts you've quoted. Heck, your main source of these arguments only says it is one possibility of many.

 

[KCfromNC]

This premise is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific evidences.

Really? Then why didn't you quote them rather than scientists and philosophers saying that it is only a possibility rather than a certainty?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still waiting for @Joshua260 to indicate whether he believes intelligence begins to exist.

I am also waiting for him to explain how he can be a self declared YEC and use Willy Craig's arguments, when Willy declares anyone who doesn't agree the earth is old is foolish.

 

[Achilles6129]

The universe had a beginning because it's subject to time and time must have had a beginning. That's simple philosophy and really has nothing to do with "research."

 

[Achilles6129]

I am also waiting for him to explain how he can be a self declared YEC and use Willy Craig's arguments, when Willy declares anyone who doesn't agree the earth is old is foolish.

The KCA has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Nothing we quoted from WLC has anything to do with the age of the universe. It's a line of reasoning based off of simple philosophy.

 

[Joshua260]

I am also waiting for him to explain how he can be a self declared YEC and use Willy Craig's arguments, when Willy declares anyone who doesn't agree the earth is old is foolish.

This is what's called an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the argument, one attacks the defender of that argument. Some have accused me of "cherry picking", made fun of William Lane Craig, and some have even suggested that there be an intelligence test before some people (referring to KCA defenders) before posting. I just ignore these posts because it's a common atheistic tactic to move the focus way from the actual topic at hand and these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260:"This premise is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific evidences."

Really? Then why didn't you quote them rather than scientists and philosophers saying that it is only a possibility rather than a certainty?

I have supplied this evidence several times on this thread. And these scientists and philosophers not only say that it's a possibility, but that it's a probability that the universe began.

 

[Joshua260]

You experience new universes coming into existence in your everyday experience?

Why be facetious?

We experience effects everyday and then look for causes of those effects. If we can't understand them now, scientists will usually assert "don't worry, one day we'll figure it out".

I think might be a good idea to quote you a famous atheist, David Hume:
"I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause".

Joshua260:"P2 is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific discoveries"

But disputed by other experts you've quoted. Heck, your main source of these arguments only says it is one possibility of many.

You are mischaracterizing the argument again. Why not just be fair and honest in our discussion?
All of the scientists I've quoted believe that the universe probably had a beginning. I'm not cherry-picking them (I could list a whole bunch Christian scientists who agree with me but you wouldn't believe them, would you?), but choosing them specifically because they are atheists who believe that the universe had a beginning.

It is when we get to extrapolating our the characteristic traits of the cause of the beginning of the universe that we get into whether or not God is the cause, and that is a question for philosophers.

 

[Joshua260]

Causality as we know it at the macro level may simply not apply at the micro level, and modern science has updated what it takes into account under causality anyways.

No proof at all to substantiate this view. There are quantum models (this is not proof!) that allow that effects can come about without causes, but even more models that don't have effects arising without causes. Effects without causes is still a "pipe-dream" for atheists.

So how many of those scientists agree with the Kalam cosmological argument? Hawking doesn't, I know that much, and most cosmologists clearly either have not heard it or do not find it convincing.

I'm not sure what the ratio is. But keep in mind that the KCA itself does not directly postulate the existence of the Christian god...only that the beginning of the universe had a cause, and I don't know if most would venture to speculate about a question relegated to the philosophical discipline.

 

[The Cadet]

The universe had a beginning because it's subject to time and time must have had a beginning. That's simple philosophy and really has nothing to do with "research."

Why does this remind me of a racecar on a train? Oh right...

No, Achilles, you do not just get to assert "time had a beginning" as philosophical when whether or not time had a beginning is a problem that astrophysicists have been puzzling over in their research!

 

[PapaZoom]

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!

Fine Tuning intrigues me. For. But I'd start with it as an argument for an intelligent agent rather than God.