Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

I do see that you happily go off-topic as it suits you.

I was replying to Archaeopteryx's question, so I guess you should talk to him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

You ignored the rest of my post (in bold):

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 because we have reason to believe that most cosmologists are atheists, so presumably they find the KCA unconvincing or they aren't convinced of its purported theological significance. The same goes for philosophers, the majority of whom are atheists. So either they have never heard of the KCA, have heard of it and are unconvinced by it, or have heard of it and are convinced by it but don't draw theological conclusions from it. The last of these is particularly important to bear in mind because the conclusion of the basic KCA leaves open the question of the nature and identity of the cause and does not exclude natural processes as a viable explanation.

To clarify, given that most cosmologists and philosophers are apparently atheists, there are a few possibilities worth considering: (1) they have never heard of the KCA; (2) they have heard of the KCA and either (a) find it unconvincing or (b) find it convincing but do not draw theological conclusions from it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

So you agree that intelligence is not immaterial and does begin to exist?

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 it makes no distinction between ex materia and ex nihilo? Then P1 is not supported by common experience. We have no experience of things "beginning to exist" 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.

Then P2 is not supported. As I noted earlier in the conversation, 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."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Given that our causal intuitions developed in a universe of physical laws, such as F=ma, we cannot be certain that those intuitions would remain intact in the absence of those laws.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Then P1 conflates ex materia creation, which is supported by our experience, with ex nihilo creation, which is not.

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

That's not what special pleading is. It's not special pleading to point out a fallacy of composition by emphasising that what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole.

 

[TaylorDonBarrett]

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!

The best argument for the existence of God is, in fact, God Himself!


I would also note some strong "sub arguments"=
1) the existence of life
2) the existence of existence
3) the existence of stable physical laws
4) the existence of moral conscience
5) the existence of the spiritual dimension

I could go on.


Now, the best argument against the existence of God?
Well, the only argument that I can think of... is the argument from a sinners evil heart, which rationalizes away its sinfulness, and seeks to do away with a righteous God of judgement who will expose their evil deeds and self-reliance; and condemn them for their actions.
And once a person has persuaded themselves using this argument, then they push it to the back of their minds, forget all about it, and latch on to all kinds of different "arguments" against God (the existence of evil in the world, so-called scientific theories of origins, etc) in order to convince themselves that their is no God, comforting themselves that they can live however they choose.

 

[Davian]

Without highly specific values for the physical constants, life couldn't exist.

That the constants are constant is not in dispute.

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.

Show your numbers for this probability that you allude to.

 

[Davian]

I was replying to Archaeopteryx's question, so I guess you should talk to him.

Were you not free to brush him off with an 'off-topic' rebuke?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.



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.

The probability of this conversation happening must be astronomically lower. After-all, you and I had to be born at just the right the time in history, with the right language, and the right tools (the internet) for this exchange to take place. Therefore, the universe must be finely tuned for this conversation.

 

[Davian]

The best argument for the existence of God is, in fact, God Himself!

Circular Reasoning Works Because Circular Reasoning Works

• Davian
• Jun 25, 2015

I would also note some strong "sub arguments"=
1) the existence of life
2) the existence of existence
3) the existence of stable physical laws
4) the existence of moral conscience
5) the existence of the spiritual dimension

I could go on.

Do you have anything that might be specific to the existence of gods?

Now, the best argument against the existence of God?
Well, the only argument that I can think of... is the argument from a sinners evil heart, which rationalizes away its sinfulness, and seeks to do away with a righteous God of judgement who will expose their evil deeds and self-reliance; and condemn them for their actions.
And once a person has persuaded themselves using this argument, then they push it to the back of their minds, forget all about it, and latch on to all kinds of different "arguments" against God (the existence of evil in the world, so-called scientific theories of origins, etc) in order to convince themselves that their is no God, comforting themselves that they can live however they choose.

Really? Do they not have to worry about the repercussions of their actions from friends, family, law enforcement, and society in general?


And also, welcome to CF!

 

[TaylorDonBarrett]

Indeed, circular reasoning does work....

so long as it works!

 

[nonbeliever314]

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

Kinda oops'd on that one when I said everything. Here's 3. Since you think this universe is the one and only one there is, there are less possibilities in the "everything" category.

1) MUH <- (emoji thumbs up)
2) Eternal Inflation
3) "Clapping" Branes

You think there was nothing "before" this universe, and God created it, so any list I make for the beginning of the universe assuming there was "stuff" around before wouldn't be satisfying for you. So above is my everything list. They're all eternal.

 

[paulm50]

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.

Got any proof of that?

 

[paulm50]

Proof a god exists or not.

1. Which one? There are so many different versions and interpretations.
2. There's no physical evidence.
3. No religious biblical evidence stands any scrutiny.
4. There's a lot of evidence that what was any god's work, was nature or the work of men.
5. There's so much abuse, death and destruction attributed to any gods or his supporters. That he's failed of cruel.
6. All bibles were written in a time of great ignorance, taking that as truth and rewriting a bible doesn't change it.
7. There has been or are, 100s of men and a few women who have invented religions. From Smith to Koresh.
8. There are millions of humans who have believed in these men, to the point of suicide or killing others.

And all religious people have to offer is a reward after death, a lie that if you ask you will receive, and suspend all rational thought and inquisitiveness and just believe.

People are welcome to reply with real evidence god exists, not words from any bible. Or saying a god caused something to happen, that Man is still investigating. That was how it all started.

 

[paulm50]

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.

And I asked you to supply a list who support your argument. Cause of the big bang. There's all you need to know. The good thing is some will disagree, they will debate, argue and research more and more. They will nt rely on a bk written 3,000 years ago. Which is putting down in writing fables for further back.

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

You're misrepresenting the evidence and truth, or those claiming god exists because the Universe exists. Man used to think everything around them was the work of god, not we know better. So religion falls back to what we are yet to learn. It's a 3,000 year old method. Flood, Plagues, volcanic eruptions, etc. Some even say AIDS is gods punishment on Gays, maybe not you, just a strawman response.

 

[paulm50]

The best argument for the existence of God is, in fact, God Himself!


I would also note some strong "sub arguments"=
1) the existence of life. Creating life is easy, bacteria, mold.
2) the existence of existence Upside down thinking.
3) the existence of stable physical laws Because if we didn't have them, we wouldn't be here.
4) the existence of moral conscience. Which has led to 5,000 year of peace. LOL
5) the existence of the spiritual dimension. Prove it.

I could go on.

But this time you real arguments.
1) the existence of life. Creating life is easy, bacteria, mold.
2) the existence of existence Upside down thinking.
3) the existence of stable physical laws Because if we didn't have them, we wouldn't be here.
4) the existence of moral conscience. Which has led to 5,000 year of peace. LOL
5) the existence of the spiritual dimension. Prove it.

Now, the best argument against the existence of God?
Well, the only argument that I can think of... is the argument from a sinners evil heart, which rationalizes away its sinfulness, and seeks to do away with a righteous God of judgement who will expose their evil deeds and self-reliance; and condemn them for their actions.
And once a person has persuaded themselves using this argument, then they push it to the back of their minds, forget all about it, and latch on to all kinds of different "arguments" against God (the existence of evil in the world, so-called scientific theories of origins, etc) in order to convince themselves that their is no God, comforting themselves that they can live however they choose.

The best argument against the existence of God, is all the killing we Humans do to each other and all the killing the Earth does to us. Which even you agree with, he does like to kill us.

"a righteous God of judgement who will expose their evil deeds and self-reliance; and condemn them for their actions." And if that righteous god doesn't punish you, the priest will. long befor you get to the pearly gates.

If a Righteous god did exist. It would of come to Earth and told the Pope to clean up his act. In the 10th Century, or before. Truth is more people have died for religion than anything. Look at the Middle East today. A different version of god telling one lot to kill the other lot. After 5,000 years, us Europeans are starting to develop a morality that might be slightly towards what Jesus wanted. Look to America for evidence of how far some have yet to go.

 

[TaylorDonBarrett]

But this time you real arguments.


The best argument against the existence of God, is all the killing we Humans do to each other and all the killing the Earth does to us. Which even you agree with, he does like to kill us.

"a righteous God of judgement who will expose their evil deeds and self-reliance; and condemn them for their actions." And if that righteous god doesn't punish you, the priest will. long befor you get to the pearly gates.

If a Righteous god did exist. It would of come to Earth and told the Pope to clean up his act. In the 10th Century, or before. Truth is more people have died for religion than anything. Look at the Middle East today. A different version of god telling one lot to kill the other lot. After 5,000 years, us Europeans are starting to develop a morality that might be slightly towards what Jesus wanted. Look to America for evidence of how far some have yet to go.

You are proof that He exists.

You are a beautiful human being, ALIVE, breathing + tasting + feeling + loving + thinking; YOU ARE PROOF!

As for "the problem of evil", are you saying that you do not believe in God because He did not give you a perfect heavenly paradise to live in? Are you ungrateful for everything He has given you to the point that you hate Him for not giving you everything else that you heart desires? In what way do you deserve a perfect, sinless, love-filled, non-violent, peaceful world?

And do you not know... God gave us that world, and we chose to destroy it!
And He came down from Heaven to live with us, and we chose to kill Him!

And guess what..
If you met Him today, and He proved His existence to you, what do you think you would do ?
I will tell you what you would do: You would spit in His face!
You would spit in His face, grab Him by the balls, and tell Him to relinquish His throne and power over to you.
Thats what you would do.

And yet you think you deserve Heaven on earth.
You don't deserve anything but eternal suffering in Hell!

But: here's the good news: even though you are such a wretched beast, He still loves you. He still wants you He still died for you

Warm regards,
-Taylor

 

[Davian]

Indeed, circular reasoning does work....

so long as it works!

Do you think your circular logic works for everyone?

 

[TaylorDonBarrett]

Do you think your circular logic works for everyone?

it can

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Perhaps it is. Where does that lead us?

If you want to say that two different parts (an immaterial one and a material one) have been attached to each other, that is fine. However, you do have a problem figuring out if Jesus really is "fully man" (as some say), or if Jesus's body is merely a non-divine meat puppet, or if Jesus should be viewed as a hybrid creature (something like a demigod).

So there is a problem with your understanding of the law of non-contradiction. It can't just be existing as something and something different at the same time, it must also be in different respects. That means that you should be cautious about accusing others about violating the law of non-contradiction in their thinking unless you can point out that they are speaking in same respect.

Objections to the FSM being immaterial in one respect and material in another do not necessarily count as a violation of the law of non-contradiction, and may be just as safe (or as dangerous) as claiming that Jesus was both God and man. Consider what you wrote here:

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

You may want to ask yourself the same question. And consider that perhaps you are the one invoking a false dichotomy (when convenient) and excusing your own doctrine in a similar case. If spaghetti cannot be both material and immaterial, then neither can God. If God can be both after all, then so can spaghetti.


eudaimonia,

Mark