Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[paulm50]

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

Please provide a list of scientists who have discovered why the Universe exists.

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

Do you have evidence of what caused the Universe to begin exist, or filling the gap as all religions do with. The man in the sky theory?
The evidence isn't in Genesis, so where is it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

Was Jesus an immaterial God, or a material man?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

...So physicists just make up the values and ranges of physical constants to prove the Bible?

Nope. I haven't seen any actual science backing up fine tuning arguments, just handwaving and bluster such as this :

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

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

Is there anything in there which shows how these physical constants arose? If not, then it really adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[KCfromNC]

Was Jesus an immaterial God, or a material man?

Even easier, what does the law of noncontradiction say about a being who is its own father?

This also has interesting implications for the claim that things can't create themselves. Seem like a rock solid certainty when applied to universes. I wonder if it works for gods, too, or if they need special rules to operate.

 

[paulm50]

Was Jesus an immaterial God, or a material man?


eudaimonia,

Mark

As a god, his achievements are small, as a man. They are second to none.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As a god, his achievements are small, as a man. They are second to none.

The issue is the law of non-contradiction, not achievements.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Even easier, what does the law of noncontradiction say about a being who is its own father?

This also has interesting implications for the claim that things can't create themselves. Seem like a rock solid certainty when applied to universes. I wonder if it works for gods, too, or if they need special rules to operate.

Jesus never claimed to be his own Father, he claimed to be a Son of the Father. All men and women are sons and daughters of God. Personality comes from the Father. In the case of Jesus he is a creator Son.

 

[paulm50]

Jesus never claimed to be his own Father, he claimed to be a Son of the Father. All men and women are sons and daughters of God. Personality comes from the Father. In the case of Jesus he is a creator Son.

So Jesus was mortal like all us. As we are sons or daughters of god.

Which is consistent with Jesus being of the House of David. As all Israelites then were in the house.

 

[Colter]

So Jesus was mortal like all us. As we are sons or daughters of god.

Which is consistent with Jesus being of the House of David. As all Israelites then were in the house.

But Jesus was/is a creator Son incarnate, both human and divine in one personality. Jesus was truly a miraculous person. Man is the last link in a long line of descending Sons of God, mortal yes, potentially eternal-divine.

 

[quatona]

But Jesus was/is a creator Son incarnate, both human and divine in one personality. Jesus was truly a miraculous person. Man is the last link in a long line of descending Sons of God, mortal yes, potentially eternal-divine.

Good to know we can circumvent the law of non-contradiction by calling the contradiction "miraculous".

 

[Colter]

Good to know we can circumvent the law of non-contradiction by calling the contradiction "miraculous".

There is no contradiction in God having a Son.

 

[Davian]

Jesus never claimed to be his own Father, he claimed to be a Son of the Father. All men and women are sons and daughters of God. Personality comes from the Father. In the case of Jesus he is a creator Son.

 

[TillICollapse]

Good to know we can circumvent the law of non-contradiction by calling the contradiction "miraculous".

The Law of Special Pleading is obeyed this way.

 

[Joshua260]

Please provide a list of scientists who have discovered why the Universe exists.

To review:
Archaeopteryx said "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..."
...so I asked him to provide a list of scientists who claim that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence. Archaeopteryx made the truth claim above and the onus is on him to back it up. I'm waiting on him to reply with the list.

Do you have evidence of what caused the Universe to begin exist, or filling the gap as all religions do with. The man in the sky theory?
The evidence isn't in Genesis, so where is it?

You are misrepresenting my argument...essentially an straw man response.

 

[Joshua260]

Was Jesus an immaterial God, or a material man?


eudaimonia,

Mark

False dichotomy.
Jesus was the manifestation of an immaterial God into a material man.

 

[PhantomGaze]

"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.

Without highly specific values for the physical constants, life couldn't exist. The probability of those values - each one - is extremely low. So the existence of life requires tuning, and it must be very particular. That doesn't seem so hard to understand.

Nope. I haven't seen any actual science backing up fine tuning arguments, just handwaving and bluster such as this :

Is there anything in there which shows how these physical constants arose? If not, then it really adds nothing to the conversation.

Do you want me to cite some relevant technical articles, or refer you to an encyclopedia that explains the concept further to you?

Also, I see no reason that we need to know how the constants arose to determine their ranges.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Even easier, what does the law of noncontradiction say about a being who is its own father?

This also has interesting implications for the claim that things can't create themselves. Seem like a rock solid certainty when applied to universes. I wonder if it works for gods, too, or if they need special rules to operate.

Straw man. Misunderstands both Christian theology, and the concept of the Trinity.

 

[Joshua260]

No, you claim that it is immaterial. Does intelligence "begin to exist"? Is it "uncaused"?

Plainly incorrect. I never claimed that intelligence was immaterial. You have me confused with another poster who was using that term "intelligence".

As cjlr first noted in a separate debate, this definition is hopelessly vague: presumably you define effect as "something caused."

Your opinion. You asked me for my definition of "cause" and I answered it..."something which brings about or produces it's effects."

In the first premise, are you referring to things "beginning to exist" ex materia or ex nihilo?

Things do not begin to exist (or come into being) without a cause, whether the cause is material or immaterial. P1 makes no distinction.

In the second premise, are you referring to the expansion of the universe or are you claiming that matter and energy were created ex nihilo?

matter and energy ex nihilo.

If you look at the standard model, it looks like an upside down cone with a point at the bottom. As we regress back in time to a zero time, one finds that distances also regress down to a zero distance. How much matter can you fit into zero distance? Zero. That boundary point represents the beginning of all matter and energy, and all of what we call space-time.

 

[Joshua260]

Are you claiming that our causal intuitions are an exception to this; that it's possible for all physical laws to break down, but for our causal intuitions to somehow remain intact?

You seem to be suggesting that I am special pleading. What some call the law of causality is not the same as physical laws. For example, F=ma is a tense-less description of how Force, mass, and acceleration relate to each other. These types of physical laws are thought to "break down" under certain extreme circumstances...in other words, F may not equal ma anymore, but that in no way relates to the "law of casualty" which is an axiom that tensed effects have tensed causes.

 

[Joshua260]

The common experience is ex materia creation, not creatio ex nihilo. If the universe did indeed originate ex nihilo, which is far from certain, then it is an exception to our common experience and therefore our causal intuitions may no longer apply.

The point of p1 is things do not begin to exist (or come into being) without a cause, whether the cause is material or immaterial. P1 makes no distinction. So the question is why do you make the exception (special pleading) in the case of the universe and claim it does not have a cause, as in the following quote:
"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..."

What is true of members of a set is not necessarily true of the set itself.

Maybe so, but then you would have to justify why not. Otherwise, you are special pleading.