Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

This is what you 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..."

You are once again ignoring the rest of the post in which I explain why that can't be right.

To review, my proposed KCA argument was:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause for it's existence.

Just to be clear, is this really all you are limiting your argument to?

Therefore, you seem to be implying that some scientists disagree with #3, so I'm simply asking you to back up your claim by citing which scientists have claimed that the universe did not have a cause for it's existence. Don't you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I suspect that you meant to say that they do not believe in God, which is not the same as disagreeing with #3.

You don't need to suspect anything: I already made clear what I mean in the rest of the post, which you ignored.

 

[Joshua260]

I've just been converted.. To a Pastafarian. Come join me. http://www.venganza.org

I have to admit, that is one funny site! I like the picture of the wise men pointing to the FSM floating in the night sky.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I see that you caught your mistake. That's fine. I make them too. But we got off on a rabbit trail. My statement was that time is a sequence of events which follow each other and that still holds.

Incorrect. I thought we covered this already. There is a "cosmic age" of the universe that is independent of a frame of reference.

Actually you never quite actually responded. The first quote is all I got out of you.

#1107 Here's the post.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never made any claims about intelligence one way or the other. That was someone else who was talking about intelligence. In any case, I certainly do not think it is material because it does not have the same attributes as...well, matter.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, which is why I phrased it as a question. Is intelligence immaterial and does it begin to exist?

Of course p1 is supported by experience. Does not all experience you ever had demonstrate that everything that begins to exist (or one might say comes into being) has a cause?

Given that you make no distinction between things beginning to exist ex materia and ex nihilo, you cannot draw on our common experience as support for the first premise. We don't experience things "beginning to exist" ex nihilo.

When you add in the clause "material" into p1, you are question begging. As in the following:
1. Everything (including the universe) that begins to exist has a (material) cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a material cause for it's existence.

The whole point of the KC is to determine what type of cause caused beginning of the universe. But you insert the conclusion that the universe had a material cause up front in p1.

So you are question begging.

That's not what I said. This is a strawman. Please address my actual comments.

Here are two physicists who claim that space and time began to exist ex nihilo:
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity. So if the universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
Frank Tipler and John Barrow from The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

In a more recent text, Barrow reflects on this point further. It is possible that the universe originated ex nihilo (note the 'if,' highlighted red), but that is far from established, meaning that your second premise is not fully justified.

To quote Brian Greene in The Fabric of the Cosmos (p. 272):

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory ... that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all.

The main point is that the Big Bang model supports only one particular interpretation of the second premise; namely, that the universe began to expand from a high density state 13.8 billion years ago and that it continues to expand still.

 

[Joshua260]

You are once again ignoring the rest of the post in which I explain why that can't be right.

The point is that I am arguing a specific version of the KCA, and your remarks here do not show that scientists are refuting the KCA version that I am putting forth. You need to first make clear exactly which version of the KCA, and its conclusion, that these scientists you talk about disagree with.

Just to be clear, is this really all you are limiting your argument to?

I don't know what you mean here. This has always been the KCA version I have proposed.

You don't need to suspect anything: I already made clear what I mean in the rest of the post...

No, not really. First you need to make clear which version of the KCA you are commenting on. State the complete syllogism, and then tell me which parts scientists disagree with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let's review:
You said:
"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."

First, we experience cause and effect every day and depend on it in order "to do" science. It is such a common every day experience that it has become axiomatic that effects have causes.

"...the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument#ixzz3eCrQIibJ

Well said by William Lane Craig.

Yes, common everyday experience. What happens at the level of common everyday experience need not apply in the highly dense state of the very early universe. Craig is apparently assuming that our metaphysical intuitions are applicable in every situation; I'm not so sure that we can be certain of this. Remember, these intuitions were shaped by common everyday experience and they help us navigate the world of common everyday experience. They have not been tested in the unfamiliar terrain of the very early universe, in which the physical conditions were markedly different from common everyday experience.

So what happens if the physical laws change?
Let's start with a force example (I'm going to ignore units).
F=ma
If an m of 2 fell at an a of 3, the f would be 6.
Therefore, the cause (m of 2 falling at an a of 3) created an effect (f of 6).

Now if the physical Force law changed from F=ma to F=m(.5a), that would not nullify the "law of causality" that effects have causes. Let's try it out:
If an m of 2 fell at an a of 1.5, the f would be 3.
Therefore, the cause (m of 2 falling at an a of 1.5) created an effect (f of 3).

So there's no reason to think that just because the physical laws themselves might change, that the "law of causality" would have to change also.

We weren't talking about physical laws changing, but physical laws breaking down.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I don't see how they have any causal power at all.

This is what I posted from another thread in here. On MUH..

"I do think the universe is purely mathematical. How? Not sure, but I think it has something to do infinity (long story). Why is it mathematical? Doesn't matter. Evidence to support the claim? Nothing besides the patterns we see in nature. Conclusive evidence? Wish me and whoever else luck. If it turns out not to be the case, i'm happy. If it turns out to be the case, still happy."

In terms of the causal power, I don't see it yet either. But I think there is something there.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point is that I am arguing a specific version of the KCA, and your remarks here do not show that scientists are refuting the KCA version that I am putting forth. You need to first make clear exactly which version of the KCA, and its conclusion, that these scientists you talk about disagree with.

I don't know what you mean here. This has always been the KCA version I have proposed.

No, not really. First you need to make clear which version of the KCA you are commenting on. State the complete syllogism, and then tell me which parts scientists disagree with.

I am talking about the same version we have been discussing here: the version that attempts to draw theological conclusions from it. We haven't been discussing any other version. In fact, if we had limited our discussion to the basic three-line KCA, then the conversation would have been very short, given that the basic three-line version doesn't entail a theological commitment even if were conceded in its entirety.

 

[Joshua260]

Actually you never quite actually responded. The first quote is all I got out of you.

#1107 Here's the post.

Sorry. I thought you had found your mistake. The site below explains how the age of the universe is calculated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

 

[nonbeliever314]

Sorry. I thought you had found your mistake. The site below explains how the age of the universe is calculated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

I basically worded my argument goofy, and corrected it.

 

[Joshua260]

I am talking about the same version we have been discussing here: the version that attempts to draw theological conclusions from it. We haven't been discussing any other version. In fact, if we had limited our discussion to the basic three-line KCA, then the conversation would have been very short, given that the basic three-line version doesn't entail a theological commitment even if were conceded in its entirety.

Plainly (and demonstrably) incorrect. I have always used the same version below:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Plainly (and demonstrably) incorrect. I have always used the same version below:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

There's no mention of deities in that version.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Jesus does not say that God is material, nor that God is material and immaterial. Rather, Jesus explains that God is spirit (immaterial). He came into this world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

The word "person" doesn't convey much to me. Did Jesus of Nazareth have a material body, just like you or me? IOWs, was he actually a man? Or was he an immaterial ghost or vision (as in Docetism)?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paulm50]

We both have conscious minds that transcend the material as we contrast the super-material values of the good contrasted with relative evil. Faith in it's purest form is a trust in the ultimate Goodness of God. The spirit of worship in man, in all men, is what motivates us to seek for the origins of these nonmaterial values.

Why do you assume god is good, other than the book says so?

The Earth from the beginning has had a molten mass centre, plates that are continually moving, a weather system from both extremes, atmosphere unable to protect us from Asteroids. And a long history of mass extermination. All happening long before Man arrived on the planet. Since Man arrived, we've had a pretty easy time of it. And yet a quick search will reveal lots of natural disasters killing innocent people who did no one any harm.

We both agree that there are deplorable errors committed in the name of God, that there are genuine charlatans who have attached themselves to religious causes for various reason, but this does not invalidate the faith of billions of sincere humans who do not act that way.

And yet you promote a book that's so far out of left field, it's good the people aren't successful with it.

It's blind faith in books with no proof they're right, that allows evil men to rape, abuse, demean, terrorise the weakest. Or just fleece people with fake books, healing, miracles or getting money so they can see a fake relic bit of cloth, wood, nail, bones, etc. Hard to shake off that back ground with a new book telling everyone they have the answer.

Or continually asking for a list of scientist who are still for an answer to your question. Which won't be that god created it.

We both have conscious minds that transcend the material as we contrast the super-material values of the good contrasted with relative evil. Faith in it's purest form is a trust in the ultimate Goodness of God. The spirit of worship in man, in all men, is what motivates us to seek for the origins of these nonmaterial values.

We both agree that there are deplorable errors committed in the name of God, that there are genuine charlatans who have attached themselves to religious causes for various reasons, but this does not invalidate the faith of billions of sincere humans who do not act that way.

 

[paulm50]

Tens of millions of people throughout the last 2000 years have met Jesus when he physically manifested himself onto them. They witnessed their lives were completely changed and for the better. This has happened around the world and to countless people over the ages, who were not even born into Christain families.

Got any proof of this?

I can prove tens of millions have died when they met Christians. At the end of a sword, bullet or disease. Usually when the Christians had come to rob them.

 

[paulm50]

Why did God wait roughly 180000 years to introduce his son to mankind?

Wrong date. 497,000 years would be closer to the mark.

Another question would be.
Why did so many gods reveal themselves to so many other people long before the Jewish god?

I am not interested in your question. If you are sincerely wanting to know the answer, then first establish a relationship with him.

Which god would that be. On older one, newer one, and what version should I use.

Does this relationship demand I stop thinking for myself?

Or not interested in questions you can't answer?

 

[SkyWriting]

The universe is evidence of the universe. In what way is it evidence of a deity?

Matter is generally not self-creating.
Matter is not generally procreating.
Matter is tends to increase in entropy.
Matter in not usually infinite.

These properties of matter are not very matter-ish, and so point to God.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why did so many gods reveal themselves to so many other people long before the Jewish god?

The reality of God is self evident. He didn't manifest himself fully until
the person of Jesus but Adam was an Archetype. Because we experience
"Time" we will always have to deal with timing issues that don't make
sense compared to God.

 

[paulm50]

One of the few things, I agree with Willy on:

He misses an important part. There is evidence in Genesis to the Age of Man.

Cain and Abel, the children of Adam and Eve, were farmers. Farming is at best 10,000 years old. Coming after 500,000 years of hunter gathering. And the Bible does give an age for the Earth, it's a few days. However the original Old Hebrew uses a word that could mens years.

Genesis 1:5
and “Elohiym [Powers]” called out to the light day and to the darkness he called out night and evening existed and morning existed one day,

A 24 hour day. Unless the a day in Genesis is billions of years. Just men making wrong into right. It happens all the time with religion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-mistakes-bible-translation_b_1129620.html

See how evil men use blind faith to their own ends. The truth is he's wrong, Adam wasn't white, he was tanned and wasn't the first either.

And Christians do the same. Which holds up if one doesn't ask questions. And gets the truth back. What we do know is no one has ever found a skeleton or drawing of a Unicorn from that time. So just men messing around with the bible, yet again.

 

[paulm50]

Matter is generally not self-creating.
Matter is not generally procreating.
Matter is tends to increase in entropy.
Matter in not usually infinite.

These properties of matter are not very matter-ish, and so point to God.

No they point to. Going to find out via science. Which people are presently doing.

No one is sure what came before the Big Bang, you're filling in the gap with nonsense to satisfy a weak curiosity. Like the original story tellers from the bible.