Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Colter]

Can you show us proof, science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict?

I said there should be no conflict between true science and true religion. Some atheistic scientists like Dawkins betray the discipline of a true scientist and make unsubstantiated assertions about religion. Some religious people deny science because it conflicts with their child like beliefs about facts such as evolution.

The term "true religion" should not be confused with a claim of the only right theology. True religion is a generic term denoting the fundamental relationship between any person of faith and spiritual realities. True religion is not concerned with science rather with the scientist.

 

[Joshua260]

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

Okay.

You remind me of a poster in these forums a while back that told me to google support for the claims he was making. It did not go well from there.

Of the FSM or your god? Basically the same, from what I gather, for the purposes of the KCA.

You dismissed the eternal flame for not being intelligent and personal.

Then you should refrain from using phrases such as "did not have the power to create the universe" and instead say something like 'is not capable'.

You are confusing me with another poster who was saying some of the things you mention.

 

[PhantomGaze]

The biggest problem with them is that we have no idea what the range and distribution are for various universal constants which were allegedly tuned. We're just supposed to take it on faith that certain things are very unlikely therefore Jesus died for our sins. That's skipping quite a bit of work.

...So physicists just make up the values and ranges of physical constants to prove the Bible? That's it. You've seen through it. Physics and Cosmology is just a religious hoax. How could I have been so blind!?

I'm kidding. Here's some information on the topic to help you out.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/introduction.html

Are you suggesting that an all-powerful, all-knowing "something" made a guess of how to put a universe together, and then was forced to fiddle with the "knobs" until we got what we observe today? How do you know it could have been different?

What are you getting at with the guessing jibe? Why would there be any guessing involved?

As far as whether or not things could have been different, I don't think it matters. Intrinsic properties are random with respect to functional outcomes.

 

[Davian]

You are confusing me with another poster who was saying some of the things you mention.

And the rest?

 

[Davian]

What are you getting at with the guessing jibe? Why would there be any guessing involved?

As far as whether or not things could have been different, I don't think it matters. Intrinsic properties are random with respect to functional outcomes.

"Tuning" can only be done to things that can be tuned; this has not been established for our universe.

What would an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful deity need with tuning? Is it not powerful enough to make it work however it likes? We could be living on the surface of the Sun. Now, that would be evidence for all-knowing, all-powerful deity.

 

[Joshua260]

Like I said a ton before in here, I don't rule out the possibility of a "god" creating everything (including this universe), it's just at the very bottom of an extremely long list of other things.

Extremely long list, eh? Please name just 10 then.

 

[Joshua260]

He is made of immaterial spaghetti. If you can posit the existence of an immaterial, unembodied mind, then why can't we do likewise for the FSM?

Because you are breaking the law of non-contradiction. Spaghetti cannot both me material and immaterial. Just like the eternal flame cannot both be material and immaterial. Do you just ignore logic when it's inconvenient?

 

[Joshua260]

In what sense does science support P1 and P2?

Extrapolated on the basis of what? We are talking about a situation in which everything we know about the world may no longer apply. So what are you extrapolating from?

answered both already.

 

[Joshua260]

If most cosmologists agree with the premises, and the conclusion follows from the premises, which you claim it does, then that is equivalent to saying that they agree with the conclusion. But that can't be right...

Ok. Please provide a list of scientists who claim that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence.

 

[Joshua260]

You mustn't assume in areas you don't understand. Find the evidence before forming forming an answer.

We have plenty of evidence that effects have causes and that the universe began to exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because you are breaking the law of non-contradiction. Spaghetti cannot both me material and immaterial. Just like the eternal flame cannot both be material and immaterial. Do you just ignore logic when it's inconvenient?

But intelligence can be? This is special pleading.

Ok. Please provide a list of scientists who claim that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence.

Define "cause."

We have plenty of evidence that effects have causes and that the universe began to exist.

Are you talking about things beginning to exist ex materia or things beginning to exist ex nihilo? Are you talking about the expansion of the universe, which began 13.8 billion years ago, or are you claiming that matter and energy were created from nothing?

 

[Davian]

Because you are breaking the law of non-contradiction. Spaghetti cannot both me material and immaterial.

Immaterial spaghetti. He has manifested himself in this world as needed, in a manner that we only perceive as pasta.

Just like the eternal flame cannot both be material and immaterial. Do you just ignore logic when it's inconvenient?

No, I abandon logic where the experts that you are citing on the topic under discussion say that it does not apply.

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

 

[Joshua260]

But intelligence can be? This is special pleading.

I don't claim that intelligence is a material substance. Do you?

Define "cause."

I have done so already. I agree with Craig's definition from Reasonable Faith pg 155 "something which brings about or produces it's effects".

Are you talking about things beginning to exist ex materia or things beginning to exist ex nihilo? Are you talking about the expansion of the universe, which began 13.8 billion years ago, or are you claiming that matter and energy were created from nothing?

I do not believe that any part of this universe existed timelessly.

 

[Davian]

We have plenty of evidence that effects have causes

As we observe, within our universe.

and that the universe began to exist.

And we have evidence of gods, Santa Clause, and fairies. It is just not very good evidence.

 

[Davian]

I don't claim that intelligence is a material substance. ...

I don't understand that statement. The only "intelligence" that I am aware of is produced by brains. It is biology. What else might it be, and what evidence would there be for it?

 

[Joshua260]

Immaterial spaghetti. He has manifested himself in this world as needed, in a manner that we only perceive as pasta.

Right. So the cause of the universe is not really the FSM (pasta), but you assert that he pretends to be at times.

No, I abandon logic where the experts that you are citing on the topic under discussion say that it does not apply.

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

They are talking about physical laws such as F=ma. Is the scientist you quote actually claiming that the existence of the universe does not have a cause?

 

[Davian]

Right. So the cause of the universe is not really the FSM (pasta), but you assert that he pretends to be at times.

Where did I say "pretend"? No more than your god pretended to walk and talk in the [hypothetical] Garden of Eden.

They are talking about physical laws such as F=ma.

1. Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

Is the scientist you quote actually claiming that the existence of the universe does not have a cause?

Did you not see the citation link, that I have provided to you twice? It was Stephen Hawking. Are you familiar with his work?

 

[Joshua260]

As we observe, within our universe.

So you are special pleading by saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause except for the universe.

And we have evidence of gods, Santa Clause, and fairies. It is just not very good evidence.

Not only extremely poor evidence, but in regards to the subject at hand (which is the KCA), the Greek and Roman gods, Santa, and the fairies are never said to exist without the universe. It is incoherent that anything that didn't exist could have caused itself to exist, so the KCA rules out these candidates as possible causes for the existence of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

Where did I say "pretend"? No more than your god pretended to walk and talk in the [hypothetical] Garden of Eden.

But I do not claim that the Christian god is a material substance such as pasta. Both your FSM and my god exist immaterially and can manifest themselves into something material within the universe. My point being is that what you call the FSM is not really made of spaghetti and in fact could be my god (although pretending to be spaghetti doesn't fit my god's character, so it sounds more like the evil god candidate on my list).

Did you not see the citation link, that I have provided to you twice? It was Stephen Hawking. Are you familiar with his work?

Somewhat. Does he claim the universe began to exist without a cause? If so, please cite.

 

[Davian]

So you are special pleading by saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause except for the universe.

No. The burden lies with you to establish that what we observe within the universe can be applied at the beginning of its current instantiation, in light of what the leading theoretical physicists have said.

Not only extremely poor evidence, <snip>

That's all I was saying. Extremely poor evidence, for gods, gods, Santa, and fairies.

However, without fairies, how would the garden grow?