• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.

PhantomGaze

Carry on my wayward son.
Aug 16, 2012
412
110
✟45,770.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Fine Tuning arguments are the best imo.

Even when people object that they don't think x or y should be a certain way, their criticisms are typically subjective, and unconvincing as counter arguments.

In fact, I haven't ever seen an objection to them that I thought was very good.

The best argument against the existence of God is probably the evidential argument from evil.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Fine Tuning arguments are the best imo.

Even when people object that they don't think x or y should be a certain way, their criticisms are typically subjective, and unconvincing as counter arguments.

In fact, I haven't ever seen an objection to them that I thought was very good.
What tuning are you referring to?
The best argument against the existence of God is probably the evidential argument from evil.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟17,004.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, he's immaterial, and his fire can do anything. He only appears as a dragon when he comes to me. That's the only way I can describe him.
That doesn't work. To describe a being who has material traits and then try to claim hat he's immaterial is incoherent. I'm going to have to discard this candidate, but it made for interesting reading.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟17,004.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I understand and admit the universe most likely had beginning. That doesn't mean a god did it.
Well let's not be too hasty (either way) until we evaluate the situation. Let's try to use some logic and see where it takes us.

And it doesn't mean this universe is the only thing there is.
I really don't see where this is relevant. But if you mean to suggest that other universes exist without a beginning, I hope you remember that the BGV addressed multiple universes also. But we're beyond that now and discussing possible causes.


I don't need KCA to convince me the universe probably had a beginning.
After all this, now you say you don't need convincing that p2 was probably true? I'm wondering what evidence or argument you knew of that I didn't reference. Okay, well I guess the exercise did us good, eh?


The part where your God comes in is where I need convincing. So you can stop arguing that the universe had a beginning. Get to the other part already, about how the thing in category 2 that didn't "begin to exist" created the universe. We can move on from the "basic KCA" now.
You still move to fast for me. Let's see what we can figure anything out about the probable cause first. For example, if we feel that we can safely conclude that the cause had wings and looked like your dragon, then we could rule out the Abrahamic god, right?

So it seems to me that we can first say that the cause is probably immaterial. I say that because it is incoherent to suggest that since the universe contains everything material, that something within the universe could have created itself.

In like manner, the cause would have been space-less.

In like manner, I think we could also say that the cause was probably timeless. Since something within the space-time universe could not have created itself, then the cause must have been timeless.

Whatever the cause was, it would have to at least been as powerful as all of the power within the universe.

Since time began at the beginning of the universe, then we can say that there never was a time when the cause did not exist. That means the cause was a "necessary" thing (its existence is not contingent on anything else), and was therefore an uncaused thing.

This one is really hard for many people to understand. If the cause was just an inanimate natural cause, and the conditions existed to cause the universe to begin to exist (the effect) with the cause, it's hard to understand why of both of them did not always exist. But instead, we have evidence that the effect (the universe existing) began a finite time ago, and therefore, there was a state of affairs in which the cause exists without the effect. It seems the only way for this to work is if the cause was a personal being. We have that situation now. I could be sitting in a chair and then all of a sudden I (the cause) could choose to sit up (the effect). I would be referred to as a free causal agent (as opposed to a deterministic one).

So it seems to me that we could say that the cause of the universe beginning to exist could be space-less, timeless, uncaused, immaterial, very powerful, and even personal. When I consider all of the candidates that would fit that description, I could list the Jewish, Islamic, or Christian god, and even a mean god. It is notable that this argument actually rules out all of the Greek and Roman gods, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
Upvote 0

nonbeliever314

....grinding teeth.
Mar 11, 2015
398
49
✟23,292.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
stuff.JPG
 
Upvote 0

nonbeliever314

....grinding teeth.
Mar 11, 2015
398
49
✟23,292.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I really don't see where this is relevant. But if you mean to suggest that other universes exist without a beginning, I hope you remember that the BGV addressed multiple universes also. But we're beyond that now and discussing possible causes.

When I said "And it doesn't mean this universe is the only thing there is.", I didn't just mean other universes. Use your imagination.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, the KCA is a good argument for the existence God. But the basic KCA only addresses whether or not the universe had a cause for it beginning to exist. It is only after we consider the possible cause for the universe beginning to exist that we can begin to consider the Christian god as a possible candidate for that cause. For example, I've heard people suggest that the cause could have been the FSM or the "Eternal Flame". Fine, we can get to those after we hammer out the basic argument. Let not skip logical steps, but rather, let's go through the basic KCA logic and see where it leads us.
Mmmm. I'm finding this one unlikely. If there is such a thing as a dragon, he would have a body and might have wings. I'm also not seeing where he got the fire from. Fire requires some air, fuel, and an ignition source. If the universe had not been created yet, I don't see how all these material things could have existed. To submit that something material could have created the material universe is incoherent, since the material would have had to exist in order to create itself.
As discussed earlier:
That's your understanding of how a flame works within the universe. Physical principles that describe how flames naturally form within the universe don't apply to the Divine Flame, which is beyond the universe. It's supernatural, and therefore doesn't need to satisfy the conditions for naturally forming flames (e.g., a source of fuel).

But if you think this objection to the Divine Flame has merit, then I can make the same objection to your personal creator God: my understanding of intelligence is that it has its roots in biology, that it is the product of living brains and therefore subject to their metabolic requirements, and that the components necessary to form intelligent life are all within our spacetime universe.

You can't dismiss the Divine Flame as incoherent on the basis of principles operant in the universe while also upholding your favoured theological proposal in spite of them.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So it seems to me that we could say that the cause of the universe beginning to exist could be space-less, timeless, uncaused, immaterial, very powerful, and even personal. When I consider all of the candidates that would fit that description, I could list the Jewish, Islamic, or Christian god, and even a mean god.
Joshua, does intelligence begin to exist? Is intelligence uncaused and disembodied?

It is notable that this argument actually rules out all of the Greek and Roman gods, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even rule out polytheism, aliens, or fairies.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It means that time doesn't run in a straight line for God like it does for this universe. Our normal experience of time is that it runs in a straight line. This means we can always ask "what came before," etc. However, with God, time wouldn't run in a straight line, it would run much differently, possibly circular. More research is needed into this, obviously, but the point is that time doesn't run in a straight line for God like it does for us.

More research? Is there any to begin with? So far this just sounds like something you've made up.

Even if you suggest that a multiverse or an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" gave birth to the universe, you still have the same problem with time because you can't have an infinite regress.

Proposing god(s) as the answer has the same problem, of course.

The point is about intelligence, not exactly who the designer is.

There no reason to think intelligence has to be involved in any way, much less one with a personality.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Fine Tuning arguments are the best imo.

Even when people object that they don't think x or y should be a certain way, their criticisms are typically subjective, and unconvincing as counter arguments.

In fact, I haven't ever seen an objection to them that I thought was very good.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟17,004.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just a few days ago you agreed that this premise was just that it was plausible that the universe began to exist, not that it did. Why the change?
P2 is more plausibly true than not. But nonbeliever314 has already conceded that the universe probably had a beginning and now we are considering the possible cause, so I've moved on from the basic KCA now.
 
Upvote 0

nonbeliever314

....grinding teeth.
Mar 11, 2015
398
49
✟23,292.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
P2 is more plausibly true than not. But nonbeliever314 has already conceded that the universe probably had a beginning and now we are considering the possible cause, so I've moved on from the basic KCA now.

Until every other natural explanation is ruled out, please don't put God in the knowledge gap.

Like I said a million times already, this universe probably had a beginning, but I'm not ruling out that it didn't either. Because WE DON'T KNOW.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
The Fine-Tuning of the physical constants.
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?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't work. To describe a being who has material traits and then try to claim hat he's immaterial is incoherent. I'm going to have to discard this candidate, but it made for interesting reading.
Then a "God" that walked and talked in a [hypothetical] Garden of Eden is struck from your list of potential candidates. Where does that leave you?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Then a "God" that walked and talked in a [hypothetical] Garden of Eden is struck from your list of potential candidates. Where does that leave you?
His criteria for determining whether an entity is an eligible candidate for the "cause of the universe" is entirely arbitrary. A flame is ineligible apparently because it requires certain material components that are, to the best of our knowledge, only found within the universe. A similar argument would also render Joshua's preferred candidate (an intelligent designer) ineligible.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
More research? Is there any to begin with? So far this just sounds like something you've made up.

There's a ton of research into God and time:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity...8&qid=1434306709&sr=1-2&keywords=god+and+time

http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Natu...d=1434306752&sr=1-2&keywords=god+time+padgett

Proposing god(s) as the answer has the same problem, of course.

It doesn't matter. Whether you have a "multiverse" or God you would still have the same issue with time. The point is that it's far more reasonable to believe God created the universe than anything else. I've brought up this point before on this thread and haven't received much of a response.

There no reason to think intelligence has to be involved in any way, much less one with a personality.

Based on deductive reasoning there is reason to think intelligence was involved. If it takes intelligence to create a machine (like a car), and the universe runs like a machine, then it's reasonable to deduce that it took intelligence to create the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua260
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.