Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

First, this is not a god of the gaps answer here.

It would seem like you are trying differentiate between a silvery thing with gills that swims in the water, and a fish.

As has already been explained

Asserted,

to you earlier, God is immaterial who sometimes has manifested himself in this world. This answer originates from the bible (since you asked about God specifically)

But we have no science for this bit?

and this trait (being immaterial) of the cause of the universe (whether it is God or not) can be extrapolated from considering the implications of the KCA conclusion.

Or, considering the conclusion (your particular god exists) that you are working backwards from.

BTW, I didn't see you ask about "timeless" before. I believe

Assert,

that there is a state of affairs in which God exists without time, and then he began to exist temporally when time began. This answer also originates from the bible (since you asked about God specifically) and this trait (existing timelessly and then temporally) of the cause of the universe (whether it is God or not) can be extrapolated from considering the implications of the KCA conclusion.

I don't see any traits in there that cannot be attributed to my version of the FSM.

 

[The Cadet]

The premises are built on logic and scientific evidences. The argument itself is a philosophical one and the experts in philosophy are philosophers.

Look, the problem here is really basic: this argument is based on philosophy and cosmology, and neither cosmologists nor philosophers are convinced by it. So what's going on? Are both disciplines just hopelessly biased or uninformed, or is WLC talking out of a hole other than his mouth?

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said: But I think you have a problem here because if you claim to think with your material brain, then all of your thinking is just based on evolution which cannot guarantee that anything you think is correct. You have no reason to think that you are using correct logic or not...you are only thinking what has been determined by evolution.

...Are you serious? This is quite possibly the dumbest non-sequitur I have ever seen. Dude, you just went full Sye Ten. Never go full Sye Ten. For the record, I am not a materialist, or a naturalist.

This was off-topic, and I really don't want to go down another rabbit trail. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough, so I'll just refer you to the following link.

http://crossexamined.org/does-truth-exist/#toggle-id-1

 

[Joshua260]

I don't see any traits in there that cannot be attributed to my version of the FSM.

The FSM is ruled out because he is made of spaghetti (a material substance of this universe).

 

[Davian]

Well I'll ask you then. Is it coherent that something that doesn't exist could bring itself into existence?

I dunno. However, I do not hold to a presupposition that cosmological models must adhere to my idea of coherency. How about you?

I'm not sure it would be proper for me to speculate on that. However, I think it would be illogical (because of the incoherency of something that doesn't exist to bring about it's own existence) to suggest that whatever the cause was, if it was "made" of anything, would be made of the stuff found in this universe.

You are already speculating that the universe had a beginning, that it needed a cause, that the cause needed to be powerful, that the cause had to be a biblical type god, etc.

I guess I wouldn't want you to overextend yourself.

 

[Joshua260]

Look, the problem here is really basic: this argument is based on philosophy and cosmology, and neither cosmologists nor philosophers are convinced by it. So what's going on? Are both disciplines just hopelessly biased or uninformed, or is WLC talking out of a hole other than his mouth?

I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Many (maybe most) cosmologists agree with p1 and p2 of the KCA. It's up to philosophers to use the findings of science to help us interpret our reality.

 

[Davian]

The FSM is ruled out because he is made of spaghetti (a material substance of this universe).

Immaterial spaghetti. He has manifested himself in this world as needed, in a manner that we only perceive as pasta.

 

[Joshua260]

I dunno. However, I do not hold to a presupposition that cosmological models must adhere to my idea of coherency. How about you?

It's the law of non-contradiction. A thing can't exist and not exist at the same time.

You are already speculating that the universe had a beginning, that it needed a cause

P1 and P2 are both supported by logic and scientific evidence (and BTW, many if not most cosmologists agree with p1 and p2).

...that the cause needed to be powerful, that the cause had to be a biblical type god, etc.

These speculations are supported by logic...and you're incorrect about the biblical god part. I have repeatedly and honestly admitted that the cause could be a mean (therefore unbiblical) god.

 

[Davian]

Yes I do. Believe or not, I wasn't too much of a fan of the KCA for quite a while. I much preferred the Leibniz version before, but the more I studied the KCA, the more I found it to be quite formidable.

Yet, it is not what convinced you of the existence of gods.

Ok. Well, science supports p1 and p2.

Science offers speculation for p1 and p2.

Science has nothing to say about the conclusion:
"Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence."
because it is a philosophical statement.

Therefore, it is speculation.

Craig is not in the business of making scientific breakthroughs. He is a philosopher.

He is in the business of selling books. What are you trying to get of of it?

 

[Joshua260]

Immaterial spaghetti.

Law of non-contradiction. The FSM cannot both be made out of a material substance and also at the same time be immaterial.

He has manifested himself in this world as needed, in a manner that we only perceive as pasta.

Ok....so he's not really made out of spaghetti then, is he? Whatever he really is, he's immaterial. I agree.

 

[Davian]

It's the law of non-contradiction. A thing can't exist and not exist at the same time.

I wasn't there. Yourself?

P1 and P2 are both supported by logic and scientific evidence (and BTW, many if not most cosmologists agree with p1 and p2).

I would like for you to provide a citation for this comment.

These speculations are supported by logic

Your logic.

...and you're incorrect about the biblical god part. I have repeatedly and honestly admitted that the cause could be a mean (therefore unbiblical) god.

You have also speculated that this "cause" was intelligent and powerful, without justification. Will you let go of those traits?

 

[Davian]

Law of non-contradiction. The FSM cannot both be made out of a material substance and also at the same time be immaterial.

Ok....so he's not really made out of spaghetti then, is he? Whatever he really is, he's immaterial. I agree.

So the FSM goes back on on the list.

 

[Joshua260]

Yet, it is not what convinced you of the existence of gods.

And I don't argue that it should be the only thing that convinces anyone else. All I claim is that the KCA lends support to the belief that the Christian god exists.

Science offers speculation for p1 and p2.

Ok, I think that's fair. But both p1 and p2 are based on scientific evidences. I think scientists would typically "speculate" that p1 and p2 are more plausibly true than not.

Therefore, it is speculation.

hmmm...not sure I can go with that one. If p1 and p2 are true, then p3 must follow.

He is in the business of selling books. What are you trying to get of of it?

Well, he sells books, so duh. But what is his motive? I would suggest that we both share the same Christian motive to help our fellow man.

 

[Joshua260]

So the FSM goes back on on the list.

But he's not really the FSM, right? He only manifest himself as the FSM at various times. I'm trying to determine what the cause really is, not what it pretends to be.

 

[Joshua260]

I wasn't there. Yourself?

Dude. If we're going to throw logic out the window, there's no point in going further.

I would like for you to provide a citation for this comment.

P1 is how we "do" science, so actions speak louder than words. If you want citations on p2, I have provided plenty of those in this thread from Hawking, Vilenkin, and Krauss. You could easily google a list of scientists who believe the universe began to exist if you like.

Your

logic.

we could go through these traits if you like.

You have also speculated that this "cause" was intelligent and powerful, without justification. Will you let go of those traits?

I don't think I said "intelligent", but I did say "powerful". I'm not sure if it was you who was asking about the power equation, but that is referring a definition for power that I not using. I mean "powerful" as in that the cause can do things that everything else can't.

 

[nonbeliever314]

A thing can't exist and not exist at the same time.

Not entirely related.. Pair production... Superposition... Anyone?

All I claim is that the KCA lends support to the belief that the Christian god exists.

If you said the KCA supported some general type of "god", and not a specific one, I would be a little more "forgiving" and sympathetic for the poor old ancient argument. Like I said a ton before in here, I don't rule out the possibility of a "god" creating everything (including this universe), it's just at the very bottom of an extremely long list of other things. But any god that anyone has ever believed in and worshipped on this Earth isn't the god at the bottom of my list. Those gods aren't on my list at all.

Just a minor note...p2 says that the universe had a beginning while the argument (at least my version) concludes that the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I understand your desire to impose dimensions outside of the known universe...I really do. Wouldn't it have been so much easier if scientists hadn't suggested a boundary to the universe??

I'd like to go back to the incoherency that something could bring itself into existence...it would have to exist in order to do that. It seems to me that if we call everything in this natural universe material, and nothing in the universe brought itself into existence, then the cause would have to be something different than what we call "material".

Do you mean cause as in a reason in P3?, or the same cause as in P1?

To me it's more complicated for all of reality to have some sort of absolute beginning than to have always been here. And what I mean by "all of reality" is whatever else there is PLUS the universe we are in/are a part of. I don't think this universe is all there is, and whatever the rest of "it" is, it might not even be another universe(s) for all we know. Why is the universe here at all? Have no idea. Do I care? I'm more concerned about how it came about, they why it came about. "Why" questions just trail off into jumbled garbage.

It's not know for sure if there is a boundary or not. I was speculating. From some stuff I read last night in "Our Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark, some models of inflation, particularly "Eternal Inflation", can create an infinite amount of space in a finite time, and "it can create an infinite volume inside a finite volume". How does it work? To make a long story short, there are solutions to general relativity that allow for it. Here is a screenshot from the ebook of what Eternal Inflation predicts and explains (from "Our Mathematical Universe").

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, he consults scientists on scientific matters.

I did not comment on whether or not cosmologists agree with Craig's philosophical argument. I said that many cosmologists (even atheists ones) agree with p1 and p2. The KCA itself is a philosophical argument. Why do we need a cosmologist to comment on a philosophical argument? The experts in philosophical arguments are philosophers.

Why? This is why:

The premises are built on logic and scientific evidences. The argument itself is a philosophical one and the experts in philosophy are philosophers.

The argument appeals to scientific evidence in the field of cosmology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The FSM is ruled out because he is made of spaghetti (a material substance of this universe).

He is made of immaterial spaghetti. If you can posit the existence of an immaterial, unembodied mind, then why can't we do likewise for the FSM?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok. Well, science supports p1 and p2.

In what sense does science support P1 and P2?

First, this is not a god of the gaps answer here.

As has already been explained to you earlier, God is immaterial who sometimes has manifested himself in this world. This answer originates from the bible (since you asked about God specifically) and this trait (being immaterial) of the cause of the universe (whether it is God or not) can be extrapolated from considering the implications of the KCA conclusion.

BTW, I didn't see you ask about "timeless" before. I believe that there is a state of affairs in which God exists without time, and then he began to exist temporally when time began. This answer also originates from the bible (since you asked about God specifically) and this trait (existing timelessly and then temporally) of the cause of the universe (whether it is God or not) can be extrapolated from considering the implications of the KCA conclusion.

Extrapolated on the basis of what? We are talking about a situation in which everything we know about the world may no longer apply. So what are you extrapolating from?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

However, I think it would be illogical (because of the incoherency of something that doesn't exist to bring about it's own existence) to suggest that whatever the cause was, if it was "made" of anything, would be made of the stuff found in this universe.

You are assuming creatio ex nihilo from the outset, but you haven't justified this assumption. As I noted previously:

Why would the cause have to be immaterial? I suppose you would say that the cause cannot be material because the universe is material and the material cannot cause the material to "come to be." But this is assuming that the material universe - matter and energy - came into existence from nothing (i.e., creatio ex nihilo). You haven't established that this assumption is warranted. This is why it was necessary for you to clarify the meaning of the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist.' If the second premise, that the universe began to exist, means that matter and energy were created from nothing, then the premise is not supported because we don't know whether matter and energy "came to be" from nothing or whether it always existed in some form. This places a huge question mark over the second premise. If the second premise is taken to mean that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, as indicated by the Big Bang model, then the premise is supported, but your conclusion is still in question. What indicates that the cause of this expansion must be immaterial?

It seems that you have performed a sleight of hand, Joshua260. 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.

Moreover, your argument that the cause must be immaterial, which stems from the assumption that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is tenable, seems to preclude any possibility of a natural explanation of cosmological origins. What reason do you have to think that it is impossible for a universe to form through natural processes that are, as yet, poorly understood?