Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

It depends on what you mean by P1 and P2, which is why I have repeatedly asked you to clarify the terms 'cause,' 'begins to exist,' and 'universe.' If P1 refers to ex materia creation, then it is supported by our experience. If it refers to creatio ex nihilo, then our experience cannot serve as support for P1 because we don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in that way. If P2 refers to the expansion of our universe, which began 13.8 billion years ago and continues still, then it is scientifically supported. If, on the other hand, it refers to the creation of the universe from nothing, then it is not supported because we don't know whether the universe did originate ex nihilo or whether it always existed in some form. If P1 refers to ex materia creation and P2 refers to the universe originating ex nihilo, then you have performed an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Davian]

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.

It also lends support to the beliefs of any number of creator-gods, including the FSM and the old multi-versal-toaster-oven-analog that pops out universes at irregular intervals.

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.

Pardon me if I do not invest much in your opinion.

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

You have yet to demonstrate p1 and p to are true.

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.

Help? As in, throwing a lifejacket to drowning man?

 

[Davian]

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.

Should we not do that first with your god? Then we can all see how it is done.

 

[Davian]

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

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

Okay.

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.

You remind me of a poster in these forums a while back that told me to google support for the claims he was making. It did not go well from there.

we could go through these traits if you like.

Of the FSM or your god? Basically the same, from what I gather, for the purposes of the KCA.

I don't think I said "intelligent", but I did say "powerful".

You dismissed the eternal flame for not being intelligent and personal.

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.

Then you should refrain from using phrases such as "did not have the power to create the universe" and instead say something like 'is not capable'.

 

[quatona]

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

It´s made of spiritual spaghetti.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Just like a man cannot be God at the same time? Good to know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It´s made of spiritual spaghetti.

I think this point does well to expose the special pleading needed to make the KCA serve its apologetic purpose. Certain qualities are assumed to be extrinsic to the universe, such that they can be invoked as part of an explanation of its origins. But others are assumed to be intrinsic to the universe, such that we cannot make sense of them apart from there already being a universe. The particular qualities, intuitions, and concepts that are assumed extrinsic and intrinsic seem to be decided arbitrarily by the arguer, or more precisely, by the arguer's theological commitments. So apparently fire is intrinsic to the universe, and therefore the Divine Flame is a poor explanation, but intelligence isn't, and therefore an intelligent designer is a viable candidate. We could just as easily argue it the other way around and claim that intelligence is intrinsic and that fire is extrinsic, or that both are extrinsic, or that both are intrinsic.

 

[quatona]

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

By your own standards, yes. This exceptional claim fulfills the scientific demand for a cause just as much (or little) as your exceptional claim.
Your claim doesn´t care about the fact that the "scienific premise" doesn´t include the "cause" you are claiming (a spiritual cause for a material event).
This claim doesn´t care either - it posits a cause (the cause being the thing itself) that also isn´t included in the "scientific premise" you are appealing to.

And suddenly it´s you who gets all "materialistic" in the same way you accused others when they pointed out that your argument thrives on an equivocation of "cause".

Your "cause" is as exceptional as the "cause" in this claim. If you want - at the same time - appeal to scientific axioms and appeal to them beyond the field they are made about, everybody else can.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your "cause" is as exceptional as the "cause" in this claim. If you want - at the same time - appeal to scientific axioms and appeal to them beyond the field they are made about, everybody else can.

If apologists can bend "the rules" to argue for an immaterial, unembodied, spaceless, and timeless intelligence, then they appear to have no grounds to object when others bend "the rules" to argue for a nongaseous eternally burning flame. They cannot appeal to "the rules" to dismiss one while ignoring "the rules" to favour the other.

 

[quatona]

If apologists can bend "the rules" to argue for an immaterial, unembodied, spaceless, and timeless intelligence, then they appear to have no grounds to object when others bend "the rules" to argue for a nongaseous eternally burning flame. They cannot appeal to "the rules" to dismiss one while ignoring "the rules" to favour the other.

It seems to me that - before even starting to consider and discuss the origin of the universe - we´d be better off to first define the playground:
- Either we demand the explanations to conform with the rules observed within the universe (in which case the KCA is clearly not an explanation),
- or we allow for the "explanation" to transgress the rules observed within the universe (in which case any exceptional claim - be it Godditit, The Eternal Flame, self-causation, or whatever - is just as good as the other).

[Btw. personally, I think we don´t get around allowing for the latter option. I see no reason to postulate that the coming-into-being of a system needs to conform to the rules observed within that system. Sloppily: An aquarium needn´t be built underwater. Whereas the first option appears to inevitably lead to an infinite regress.]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

If you are talking about ex materia creation, then no, I don't think so. But if you are talking about ex nihilo creation, then we don't know. What we know to be true about things "beginning to exist" ex materia need not apply to things that "begin to exist" ex nihilo, if ex nihilo creation is indeed a real phenomenon, which is far from certain. In other words, our intuitions about causality have not been tested in the unfamiliar terrain of ex nihilo creation, and we aren't even sure whether there is any such terrain to navigate in the first place.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1. Many (I suspect most) cosmologists agree with p1 and p2.

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.

 

[quatona]

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.

On another note, even if most or all cosmologists were theists that wouldn´t necessarily mean they find the KCA convincing. It might just mean that they are able to separate their science and their personal beliefs.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

This is a complete non-sequitur that does nothing to affect the thoughts I hold. A logical sentence is logical regardless if it is stated by a man, a computer, of a bottle of Dr. Pepper fizzing atheistically.

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

Yeah, and Turek's argument is completely bogus sophistry.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Many (maybe most) cosmologists agree with p1 and p2 of the KCA.

So why don't they seem to agree with the conclusion very often? I'd argue that your claim, that most of them agree with both premises, is wrong. Premise 1 uses extremely sloppy language and many people reject it; premise 2 is based on theoretical physics that quite a few of them reject. Seriously, I don't know where this disconnect could be coming from otherwise. Most of them agree with the premises but not the conclusions of a completely logical argument? Why? Where is this disconnect coming from?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On another note, even if most or all cosmologists were theists that wouldn´t necessarily mean they find the KCA convincing. It might just mean that they are able to separate their science and their personal beliefs.

That's right. As a theist, I did not find the KCA convincing. It is presented as an impressively simple syllogism, but beneath the surface there are numerous assumptions that the arguer makes little to no effort to justify. As such, even as a theist, I concluded that the KCA does not establish what it purports to establish.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

The problem here is requiring one to "have reasons" to think that one can think. This is an absurd thing to ask of anyone, even one who believes in God. You'd have to be able to trust your thinking (at least a little) in order to conclude that God (or evolution, or whatever) makes it possible for you to think successfully. There is no way around that without vicious circularity, and you aren't going to pull yourself up by your bootstraps just by declaring that God makes it possible for you to think. Why do you think that? You would already have assumed that you can think, and without yet presupposing any God or divine involvement.

An especially poor aspect of this argument is the idea that material brains somehow are incapable of logical thought because they are "programmed" by evolution. Our brains aren't "programmed" in the way that computers are. We have ways of correcting our thoughts and methods of thought through life experience, including trial and error. We are capable of improving our logical skills, and this is something we see in practice. There is no good reason to think that "material" brains can't do this.

And there is a bigger problem -- how do you know that you aren't programmed to think incorrectly by God? You would only thinking in a way that has been determined by God.

Pre-suppositionalism goes nowhere fast. It's just obfuscation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

"The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even the logic of philosophy. Religion is faith, trust, and assurance."


"Science must always be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of its borders. Religion is forever dependent on faith, albeit reason is a stabilizing influence and a helpful handmaid. And always there have been, and ever will be, misleading interpretations of the phenomena of both the natural and the spiritual worlds, sciences and religions falsely so called."UB

 

[KCfromNC]

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

In some people's view, logic dictates how reality must work. Those sorts of people think that philosophers are the go to people in understanding the universe because philosophers think really hard about it.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't care what some lay-people feelings are about how it works. You can't logic your way to an understanding of the universe from first principles. You have to actually study it, learn the math (cough cough), understand the models and do real research. There is a reason why no one goes to a philosopher when they get sick, no matter how hard the philosopher has thought about curing disease.[/QUOTE]

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Science must always be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of its borders. Religion is forever dependent on faith, albeit reason is a stabilizing influence and a helpful handmaid.

I think that does well to show what happens when people who try to defend religious doctrine attempt to invade the realm of science. They retain the view that reason is just a "helpful handmaid", and don't realize that science is grounded in reason.

I've likened it to viewing reason as a lap dog. When the lap dog barks at the right people at the right times, it is rewarded with pets and treats. When it barks at the owner, it is smacked with a newspaper to teach it a lesson. Handmaids too need to speak only when spoken to, and to know their place.

I'll let you in on a little secret -- when any religion or philosophy reduces reason to the status of a meek and obedient servant, that's what it aims to make you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I think scientists would typically "speculate" that p1 and p2 are more plausibly true than not.

Hmm, I sense backpedaling. The argument makes no mention of P1 and P2 being statements of probability, and yet here you are saying that the premises are only possibly true. What's up with that? If your experts don't believe that P1 and P2 are certain, why are you presenting them as such?