Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Ana the Ist]

Was there a "time" (for all that term is worth) before t=0 where God might have decided to create the universe but had not yet gone through with it?

Obviously there had to have been....if the universe was created and began to exist. I don't know what creationists have such a hard time with that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't see why some atheists have a hard time understanding this. The moment that universe began to exist (t0) is the exact moment that God created it (t0).

I find that some people have a hard time with that, so let's think about a pool table with two balls. One begins to roll fast and hard at t0 and smacks another at t2. So two questions:
1. exactly when did the first ball smack the second ball and impart its energy? t=t2.
2. exactly when did the second ball absorb the energy from the first ball and begin to move? t=t2.

The effect of the universe coming into existence is the exact same moment that God brought it into existence. Both the cause and effect occurred concurrently.

I understand what you're saying... I don't agree with it (I don't think a cause and effect can exist in the same moment...it changes the very meaning of cause and effect) but I'll accept it for the sake of this discussion because it's not the problem. The problem is that you have a god creating a universe that begins to exist. If the universe begins to exist, and god has always existed, then you logically have a time when only god exists and the universe doesn't. So follow along....

Moment 1. God exists...universe doesn't.
Moment 2. God creates universe.
Moment 3. God and universe exist.

It's a timeline, in sequential order. It doesn't matter that we cannot measure it in seconds or years...it's a logical temporal sequence. If the universe "begins to exist" then there is some state of time which exists outside the universe and god is in it. Your explanation of god creating the universe makes it a logical necessity. Sorry.

 

[FireDragon76]

Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain. But that's another discussion altogether.

 

[Deidre32]

How does one argue against someone's ideology? Faith is just that...faith. It doesn't have substantiated proof to back it up. So, to argue against it would be an effort in futility. I was once a believer, so I know how that goes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope. It simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is confirmed daily by personal experience and also repeatedly by science.

p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence,

Our concept of causality, as derived from personal experience, describes the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime, not the creation of matter and energy ex nihilo.

and p2 is confirmed by not only two philosophical arguments but also by 2 scientific evidences and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do you have something against science...or is it just when it leads to implications that you wish to deny?

What implications specifically?

I beg to differ. Although I'm not saying that the FSM is bound by space-time, but he is material...after all, he's made of spaghetti.

It's immaterial spaghetti.

However the rest, to the best of my knowledge were always within space-time. If you think not, you can cite a reference if you like. However, even if they did exist outside of space-time,

So what? To the best of our knowledge, persons are also within spacetime. Yet you have no difficulty in positing a person that exists beyond spacetime.

The argument against infinite regress suggests it.

Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question of how you established that this particular entity is the starting point, and not some other entity. All it suggests is that the chain may not extend infinitely, not that the chain stops with your god.

So what? Yes, I'm speculating about what the cause of the universe would be. Geesh!

Kudos for admitting to it. Most apologists don't.

One atheist complains saying that I'm presupposing the existence of God in the KCA (which I'm not), and the other gets on my case if I don't. I'm simply using the KCA to extrapolate out what traits the cause would have, and it so happens that those traits limit us to only a few possibilities. All of this I have admitted several times. While the KCA does not rule out the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian gods, it does rule out temporal-material causes.

In what way does the KCA narrow the possibilities? In its most basic form, all it tells us is that the origin of the universe is in need of explanation. It doesn't provide any guidance as to what form that explanation must take, whether it must be natural or supernatural, whether it involves gods or Divine Flames, etc. You're right in saying that it doesn't rule out the Abrahamic gods, but it also doesn't rule out countless other supernatural explanations, including the Divine Flame.

Yes, it does. It implies that the cause was immaterial, timeless, powerful, uncaused, and even personal.

You have not established this, particularly the last one.

I always hear that, but no atheist seems willing to list any, at least any that pass the criteria of the KCA.

The KCA doesn't set any criteria. The conclusion of the standard three-line KCA can be read as simply saying that the origin of the universe is in need of explanation. The criteria you are referring to come from your speculation about what this explanation might be.

People often get caught by this misunderstanding. Whether or not something came out of nothing or its' just a reordering of existing material is actually irrelevant. The fact remains that anything that begins to exist, even like a foal, a painting, a house, a car, etc. has a cause of it's coming into existence. None of these things just come into being for no reason. So p1 stands.

There's no "misunderstanding." It's an apologetic sleight of hand being exposed. It's relevant to consider what is meant by 'cause' because the term's meaning seems to shift between premise 1 and the conclusion.

You're the one who is limiting the cause to matter and energy within space-time, not the proponent of the KCA. So you rule out other types of causes from the outset. Why do you do that?

Hey, you're the one gesturing toward our experience as support for premise 1, so don't blame me when I point out that your use of the term 'cause' departs significantly from the understanding of causality we derive from experience. You could of course admit that our intuitions about causality may be a poor guide to understanding the very early universe, or may even be inapplicable in the absence of a universe, but that would undermine the KCA.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain. But that's another discussion altogether.

And this supports the ex nihilo creation of ideas, how?

 

[talquin]

Joshua - He's correct. The KCA does engage in the fallacy of special pleading. It says that God is exempt from creation, yet the universe isn't. That's special pleading and kills the entire KCA.

Nope. It simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is confirmed daily by personal experience and also repeatedly by science.

Not necessarily true. If all the items which began to exist in your sample had a cause, then one can come to the erroneous conclusion that everything that began to exist has a cause. But have you (or anyone) examined everything that ever began to exist? If not, then we can't know for sure that everything that begins to exist had a cause.

If it's about what we do know, then the entire KCA is invalidated by the first two premises.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

We don't know for sure that either of those are true.

p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence, and p2 is confirmed by not only two philosophical arguments but also by 2 scientific evidences and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do you have something against science...or is it just when it leads to implications that you wish to deny?

See explanation above for why #1 isn't necessarily true.
Unless you were there to observe that the universe began to exist, you can't know for sure that it did begin to exist. Were you there to observe that?

You'll find an excellent refutation of the KCA at Cosmological Kalamity

Please read it and if there is anything about it you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain.

I don't do links. Make your case here.

- The KCA relies on two premises, which in effect are actually two conclusions. Yet there are no sufficient premises upon which those two conclusions are based on. This is argument from ignorance, as you're assuming the initial two premises to be true when you really don't know.

- The primary reason it assumes that the universe hasn't always existed is because infinity doesn't exist and that infinity is just a concept. Yet it contends that God is infinite. This is special pleading, as you're giving God a waiver from your rules regarding infinity.

- In order to get from the conclusion to a god existing, the supporters of KCA would have to show how the only thing which can be in the category of "not beginning to exist" is God. This is begging the question, as you're essentially using God as a synonym for "all things that did not begin to exist".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain. But that's another discussion altogether.

The science of mind, brain, and behaviour is still embryonic, although growing rapidly, but I think we know enough now to state with reasonable confidence that minds and brains are causally connected and that you cannot have one without the other.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think this post captures the frustration I sometimes feel looking through some of these threads.

I think the Divine Flame is a useful parody of how the KCA is typically used by apologists. The basic form of the argument is not a compelling apologetic because the arguer is interested in establishing that the 'cause' is commensurate with his concept of God. That's why there is usually a supplementary line tacked on to the end of the argument that discloses the theologically laden assumptions of the arguer.

 

[KCfromNC]

People often get caught by this misunderstanding. Whether or not something came out of nothing or its' just a reordering of existing material is actually irrelevant.

Not when one is making arguments about things beginning to exist it isn't.

The fact remains that anything that begins to exist, even like a foal, a painting, a house, a car, etc. has a cause of it's coming into existence.

This isn't a fact.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're the one who is limiting the cause to matter and energy within space-time

p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence

Seems that even proponents of the KCA are talking strictly about cause and effect of natural material objects here inside the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

Minds are not brains, nor is the mind reducible to the brain.

I guess that means you can't find even a single example of a disembodied consciousness.

But that's another discussion altogether.

Hey, you brought it up.

 

[Mediate]

Well, you don't really "know" very much at all. You can only be reasonably sure. So, for example, when we see a car or airplane we're reasonably sure that it took intelligence to create them. Likewise, when we see the universe, we can also be reasonably sure of the same thing. Exactly how is that idea faulty?

People "make" things only in the sense that they refashion what alread exists. Humans, on themost fundamental of scales, can't "create" energy or "destroy" energy, only change it in form. And in fact, we are not even the cause of that energy's change in form. We understand the conditions necessary for the change in form and we apply those conditions. The hammer that bends the metal. But we have not created the energetic functions and mechanisms that lead to changes in energetic form. We only apply out knowledge of those already existent electromagnetic mechanisms. So while it would be fair to say intelligence is required to "fashion" the energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) the existence of the energy itself is not subject to human intelligent creation. There's no reason to think that because we need intelligence to refashion energy into certain forms that suit the needs of an intelligence (humans) that this means intelligence is necessary for the energy itself to exist.

I certainly wouldn't call it "speculation."

To think that perhaps the universe required an intelligent creator is exactly "speculation".

Determine and measure the fact that when you see a car/airplane, you can be reasonably sure it took intelligence to make it...? Please.

Yes, we can be reasonably sure that we fashioned a car or a plane out of what already existed. In fact, we can be more than reasonably sure. We can be absolutely certain. However, we cannot even be reasonably sure that intelligence led to the energy from which cars and planes are ultimately fashioned.

If God exists (playing Devil's Advocate here - obviously he does), then he freely chose to create the universe and therefore could have freely chosen to create a different one.

Antrhopic principle, burden of proof. What is, in this universe (and God is not certainly a thing that is) cannot ever be used to speculate on what "may" exist in another "possible" universe. We are bound by universal laws that mean that any speculation on what exist "outside" those, if indeed anything DOES even exist outside those, is utterly futile and pointless.

In another universe completely different laws and rules may exist, and as we are bound in this one, we cannot know. WE cannot even reasonably speculate in this regard. It's for want of a better word, jibberish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

People "make" things only in the sense that they refashion what alread exists. Humans, on themost fundamental of scales, can't "create" energy or "destroy" energy, only change it in form. And in fact, we are not even the cause of that energy's change in form. We understand the conditions necessary for the change in form and we apply those conditions. The hammer that bends the metal. But we have not created the energetic functions and mechanisms that lead to changes in energetic form. We only apply out knowledge of those already existent electromagnetic mechanisms. So while it would be fair to say intelligence is required to "fashion" the energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) the existence of the energy itself is not subject to human intelligent creation. There's no reason to think that because we need intelligence to refashion energy into certain forms that suit the needs of an intelligence (humans) that this means intelligence is necessary for the energy itself to exist.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that intelligence is a preexisting force that organises matter and energy. This teleological intuition seems to have it backwards though. Intelligence doesn't just come from nowhere; matter and energy must first undergo certain processes in order to become 'intelligent' and thereby have the ability to organise things. As we learn more about the universe, and as we trace the origins of intelligence to its roots in biology, this teleological intuition becomes increasingly untenable.

Apologists leverage this assumption in the KCA to some extent. The idea that intelligence depends on there being a universe would go against their assertion that an intelligence was responsible for bringing the universe into being. This is usually the point at which they resort to special pleading: "Oh, but this intelligence is exceptional! Being supernatural, it doesn't need to satisfy the conditions necessary for intelligence within the universe. It's special, so our knowledge of 'intelligence' within this universe doesn't apply."

 

[Mediate]

There seems to be an underlying assumption that intelligence is a preexisting force that organises matter and energy. This teleological intuition seems to have it backwards though. Intelligence doesn't just come from nowhere; matter and energy must first undergo certain processes in order to become 'intelligent' and thereby have the ability to organise things. As we learn more about the universe, and as we trace the origins of intelligence to its roots in biology, this teleological intuition becomes increasingly untenable.

I'm paraphrasing, but the Buddha described it perhaps, for me at least, most succinctly:

"When the conditions required for consciousness are present then consciousness arises, and when the conditions required for consciousness are not present then consciousness ceases to arise".

Read "The Buddha's Ancient Path", by Thera Piyadassi. Although much of it is to do with meditation and the like, there is actually a fair bit that touches on the nature of being -- energy, matter, consciousness, time -- that I found very intriguing and ultimately agreeable with what science has to say on the subjects.

 

[Mediate]

Apologists leverage this assumption in the KCA to some extent. The idea that intelligence depends on there being a universe would go against their assertion that an intelligence was responsible for bringing the universe into being. This is usually the point at which they resort to special pleading: "Oh, but this intelligence is exceptional! Being supernatural, it doesn't need to satisfy the conditions necessary for intelligence within the universe. It's special, so our knowledge of 'intelligence' within this universe doesn't apply."

Exactly, á la "the anthropic principle".

If creationists want to talk about God creating the Earth they'd be best to do so with a stark realization that what they're saying is insupportable on any tangible scale of knowledge -- logic, scientific inquiry, common sense.

This universe, is of course, the way that it is, so any notion of something existent outside its rules, frames, laws and premises is ultimately a dud argument; it is a big fat conceptual abstraction that belongs neither here nor there; a notion that is relevant to no genuine existent factual physical natural thing; and an idea that has no place in logical discussion regarding what exists in the universe in which we all exist.

If it exists "outside and beyond this universe", then it is utterly, entirely, irrelevant within it.

 

[Joshua260]

Was there a "time" (for all that term is worth) before t=0 where God might have decided to create the universe but had not yet gone through with it?

t0 would have been the beginning. There would have been no t-1. In that state affairs, God existed alone...without creation, or space-time as scientists like to call it.

 

[Joshua260]

Ask and ye shall receive...

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? - Scientific American from that page...

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy...."

It's interesting and short, I suggest you take a gander.

Also...

Phys.Org Mobile: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

That made big headlines this year. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, I just brought it up to our friend Achilles because he kept insisting that the universe had to have "begun to exist". I explained that it probably began to exist in its current state, but could've existed in another state before. The jury is still out on that question.

Ok. I looked at the virtual particles site. I don't always take the time to check out sites but it sounded like you might have something interesting to look at, and it was, but it really didn't do anything to destroy the KCA. The particles site was just explaining that virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time, but that's no big news. I read that stuff...gosh 30 years ago. But the thing is that they are not popping into existence out of nothing like what we mean by nothing when we speak of the KCA. When Laurence Krauss talks of the universe popping out of nothing, he is actually referring to a something. Virtual particles go in and out of existence in a field rife with energy. On the other hand, when we speak of the universe coming into existence out of nothing, we mean not anything, not even a virtual particle field.

My research on the singularity paper revealed that the scientists involved only meant to posit a lack of a singularity, and that was taken to imply that there was no beginning either, but that's not necessarily the case. In fact, I have seen that model before and it has been pointed out that even though it does not show a singularity, it does show a definite beginning.

So I don't see any of this as destroying the KCA, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Joshua260]

Does God exist?

Please don't qualify it with "beyond the universe" or "outside of time" because neither you nor I understand what that means. Answer yes or no, does God exist like you and I exist? That is, as an independent and objective reality.

Yes, I believe God exists.

 

[talquin]

t0 would have been the beginning. There would have been no t-1. In that state affairs, God existed alone...without creation, or space-time as scientists like to call it.

Did anything exist prior to t0?