Is it reasonable to believe there is a God? Conversation with Craig and Krauss

[Dave Ellis]

Wow, the comments in this thread...

Is everyone on this "Christian" forum an atheist or what?

We've got the atheists here ignoring that Krauss was a poor debater and defending him blindly to the death despite his ad hominem attacks, misplaced anger, moving of the goalpost and constant interrupting of Craig (something poor debaters do to try to get their opponent off-guard which I think is testament to the fact that Krauss had no logical answers to give other than insults).

Can you point out a single ad hominem, or goalpost move Krauss made? He's also not angry here, passionate in areas, but not angry.

Lastly, interrupting in a format like this is not a sign of a poor debater. In fact anyone with any brainpower would stop someone immediately when they commit a fallacy or are building an argument off incorrect facts. To allow them to continue with a flawed premise not only wastes time, but it opens the door for that person to come back afterwards with the "that's not what I said" line, when it is exactly what they said.

We've got "Christians" saying that Craig's argument was about faith. Clearly they never watched the first several minutes of the first debate where Craig puts forth his argument for God. Something yet to be debunked by any atheist.

I would agree Craig's argument is not about faith, however his arguments are built on an argument from ignorance fallacy. For example, his first one is between roughly 8:00 and 8:42. Based on the argument he raises, even if all his points are correct (which he can't say for certain), there is nothing at all to suggest that the cause is a being.

 

[Matt1128]

Can you point out a single ad hominem, or goalpost move Krauss made? He's also not angry here, passionate in areas, but not angry.

Lastly, interrupting in a format like this is not a sign of a poor debater. In fact anyone with any brainpower would stop someone immediately when they commit a fallacy or are building an argument off incorrect facts. To allow them to continue with a flawed premise not only wastes time, but it opens the door for that person to come back afterwards with the "that's not what I said" line, when it is exactly what they said.



I would agree Craig's argument is not about faith, however his arguments are built on an argument from ignorance fallacy. For example, his first one is between roughly 8:00 and 8:42. Based on the argument he raises, even if all his points are correct (which he can't say for certain), there is nothing at all to suggest that the cause is a being.

I'll make this as simple as possible.

Which one of Krauss' arguments did you find convincing?

What I saw was Krauss' equivocating nonbeing and a quantum vacuum while trying to weasel his way out of the universe being past-finite by saying it isn't certain. Well, of course it isn't certain that the universe had a beginning. Besides, Craig never made that claim. The point he was making is that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. And guess what? Krauss conceded to that point!

If the natural world has a cause, then it does follow that it is God--or a being very much like God. This is because the cause would need to be something in a category outside of nature. The cause would need to be tremendously powerful--or sufficiently powerful to create a natural world like the one we reside in. It would also need to be very intelligent because the natural world appears to be ordered and is incredibly improbable as demonstrated by science (the cosmological constants). It would need to possess some sort of will because a necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have caused a past-infinite universe; however, we observe a past-finite universe. The cause would have also existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of space-time.

Sounds like God to me.

As for Krauss' e-mail exchange with Alexander Vilenkin, Craig decided to e-mail Vilenkin himself so he could get his hands on the UNEDITED version of the e-mail Krauss shared in his powerpoint presentation. He found out that Krauss was indeed trying to mislead the audience and that Vilenkin thinks Craig accurately represents his scientific viewpoints, but doesn't agree with the theological conclusions that Craig draws from them. You can find all of this on Craig's website, Reasonable Faith (.org). I'm not allowed to post links because I'm a noob, but you can find Craig's exchange with Vilenkin on that site under Writings > Q&A > #336.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If the natural world has a cause, then it does follow that it is God--or a being very much like God. This is because the cause would need to be something in a category outside of nature. The cause would need to be tremendously powerful--or sufficiently powerful to create a natural world like the one we reside in. It would also need to be very intelligent because the natural world appears to be ordered and is incredibly improbable as demonstrated by science (the cosmological constants). It would need to possess some sort of will because a necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have caused a past-infinite universe; however, we observe a past-finite universe. The cause would have also existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of space-time.

Sounds like God to me.

I don't think the bolded section is in any way convincing. And the rest, in and of itself, just doesn't sound like a God anymore.

Showing a past-infinte universe, showing a cause for the universe etc is all nice and well. But as long as you can't more convincingly present a conscious, intelligent, personal entity I am afraid even the otherwise best argument is just useless. We don't even exactly know what "personal" as in "personal deity" means exactly. We don't know if -- and let alone how -- some disembodied "intelligence" (whatever this is in this context anyway) would produce anything material. And to pass it off as the key to explaining the order in nature ... Ughh ... No, just no.

And this thing about that it "would need to possess some sort of will because" does not make the slightest sense either. A "necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have" this-and-that. It would?? Beats me how we would know. (Isn't this the part where we commit suicide by introducing libertarian free will?)


In other words, the arguments has its weakest point in the part(s) where it matters most: to demonstrate the existence of some sort of personal entity. Intelligence, will, conciousness, you-name-it

And convincingly show such an entity ... It has not happened in the past, it is not happening now, it won't happen in the future. Theism simply is not like that. (And how could it ever be if it caters to hoi polloi)

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'll make this as simple as possible.

Which one of Krauss' arguments did you find convincing?

I originally watched this video a day or two after the original post, which was about a month ago now. I'm familiar with Krauss' views and arguments, I've read "A Universe From Nothing" and find it quite compelling, however I'd need to re-watch the video to specifically remember what arguments he presented and didn't present in this particular debate. So, I'll get back to you on that one.

What I saw was Krauss' equivocating nonbeing and a quantum vacuum while trying to weasel his way out of the universe being past-finite by saying it isn't certain. Well, of course it isn't certain that the universe had a beginning. Besides, Craig never made that claim. The point he was making is that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. And guess what? Krauss conceded to that point!

I'm familiar with this one, and he's addressed it many times in and out of this debate. The problem is, theologians don't have a definition for what nothing is, they can only tell you what it's not. Anytime science addresses what they would have once called nothing (i.e. empty space), they change the definition (move the goalposts?) so that their God is not impacted by the findings.

For example, what exactly is non-being? If it's the absence of space and time, there still must still be potential for space and time to come about, or it wouldn't be here now. So, something still exists in some sense.

If the natural world has a cause, then it does follow that it is God--or a being very much like God. This is because the cause would need to be something in a category outside of nature.

Again, an argument from ignorance, nature is not specifically limited to our universe as we know it. For example, if a multiverse does exist, presumably it's also governed by natural processes, and they may be completely different from what we experience here.

In short, we can't say anything definitively about what exists outside of the universe as we know it, because we simply have no evidence.

The cause would need to be tremendously powerful--or sufficiently powerful to create a natural world like the one we reside in. It would also need to be very intelligent because the natural world appears to be ordered and is incredibly improbable as demonstrated by science (the cosmological constants).

What you are proposing is far more improbable than what you're arguing against. You say it's too improbable for our universe as we know to come about naturally because it's too complex... and the solution you provide is something not only far more complex, but also intelligent.

How on earth do you justify that thing existing? And what created it? (and if you go with the old standard "it always existed" cop out, provide evidence to justify your claim)

Based on the anthropic principle, if the multiverse actually exists, and there's many universes formed, then odds are a few of them will contain conditions favourable to life. In fact, it's almost inevitable. And to quote Krauss, "it's not surprising to find ourselves in a universe in which we can live". There may be thousands of other universes out there in which life can not be supported, ours has the right makeup in which it can be.

It would need to possess some sort of will because a necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have caused a past-infinite universe; however, we observe a past-finite universe. The cause would have also existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of space-time.

Sounds like God to me.

Sounds like a god you are trying to define into existence based on arguments from ignorance to me.

As for Krauss' e-mail exchange with Alexander Vilenkin, Craig decided to e-mail Vilenkin himself so he could get his hands on the UNEDITED version of the e-mail Krauss shared in his powerpoint presentation. He found out that Krauss was indeed trying to mislead the audience and that Vilenkin thinks Craig accurately represents his scientific viewpoints, but doesn't agree with the theological conclusions that Craig draws from them. You can find all of this on Craig's website, Reasonable Faith (.org). I'm not allowed to post links because I'm a noob, but you can find Craig's exchange with Vilenkin on that site under Writings > Q&A > #336.

I'll check it out.

 

[Matt1128]

Showing a past-infinte universe, showing a cause for the universe etc is all nice and well. But as long as you can't more convincingly present a conscious, intelligent, personal entity I am afraid even the otherwise best argument is just useless. We don't even exactly know what "personal" as in "personal deity" means exactly. We don't know if -- and let alone how -- some disembodied "intelligence" (whatever this is in this context anyway) would produce anything material. And to pass it off as the key to explaining the order in nature ... Ughh ... No, just no.

An unembodied mind possessing sufficient intelligence and power to create a natural world like ours seems more plausible to me than the natural world coming into existence uncaused from nonbeing or the natural world being past-infinite.

And this thing about that it "would need to possess some sort of will because" does not make the slightest sense either. A "necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have" this-and-that. It would?? Beats me how we would know. (Isn't this the part where we commit suicide by introducing libertarian free will?)

A necessary cause would produce infinite effects because it would have always existed, unless it had the ability to choose to create or refrain.

The universe appears to be a highly improbable life-permitting universe.

The universe operates in a logical manner and can be rationally understood.

To me, it seems like whatever caused the universe is a sentient being. Makes sense to me. There is a lot of literature on this subject that you could read if you're still interested. Books like Reasonable Faith or The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. You may still not agree, but at least you'd be disagreeing with a more articulate and accurate view.

 

[Matt1128]

Again, an argument from ignorance

I've noticed you keep using the term argument from ignorance. I decided to look it up and according to philosophy.lander.edu it means,

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

I don't see how I or Dr. Craig are guilty of this. Could you elaborate?

Interestingly enough, after reading this definition, I've realized that many atheists are guilty of committing this fallacy when they say things like, "God doesn't exist because His existence has not been proven."

For example, what exactly is non-being? If it's the absence of space and time, there still must still be potential for space and time to come about, or it wouldn't be here now. So, something still exists in some sense.

Nonbeing just means nonexistence or not anything. The "absence of space and time" doesn't do the word justice because there may be other categories of existence that fall outside of space-time.

Anytime science addresses what they would have once called nothing (i.e. empty space), they change the definition (move the goalposts?) so that their God is not impacted by the findings.

Actually "nothing," "nonbeing," and "not anything" has always meant the same thing, irrespective of what theologians think. It's atheists like Dr. Krauss who are trying to redefine words. If you look up nonbeing in the dictionary, you're not going to find, "A quantum vacuum."

nature is not specifically limited to our universe as we know it. For example, if a multiverse does exist, presumably it's also governed by natural processes, and they may be completely different from what we experience here.

I think you misunderstood my point. If you remember I was talking about the natural world, which would encompass even a multiverse. It would encompass any material manifold. And if we're talking about what caused the natural world, then obviously it couldn't be... the natural world.

You say it's too improbable for our universe as we know to come about naturally because it's too complex...

I'm saying our universe is an improbable life-permitting universe. If our universe is due to chance, then we're very... very lucky--or our universe was intended by an intelligence.

and the solution you provide is something not only far more complex, but also intelligent.

The solution to what caused the first computer is more complex and intelligent than the computer itself. Is it not?

In any case, yes, I do think it is more plausible that our improbable life-permitting universe was produced by a cause which possesses intelligence rather than our improbable life-permitting universe coming into being uncaused from nonbeing. The latter is absurd.

How on earth do you justify that thing existing? And what created it? (and if you go with the old standard "it always existed" cop out, provide evidence to justify your claim)

I don't know of anyone who thinks God was created. When philosophers and theologians talk about God, they're normally talking about a maximally great necessary being (cannot fail to exist).

Based on the anthropic principle, if the multiverse actually exists, and there's many universes formed, then odds are a few of them will contain conditions favourable to life.

True and this is one way to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for life. However, the multiverse hypothesis is a hypothesis devoid of any empirical evidence. We don't even evidence for one more universe, let alone an infinite number. Moreover, scientists have realized that the mechanism that would generate an infinite number of universes would exhibit fine-tuning in itself and it too would be incredibly improbable.

In fact, it's almost inevitable. And to quote Krauss, "it's not surprising to find ourselves in a universe in which we can live".

Who is saying that though? Who is saying, "Boy, I'm surprised I live in a life-permitting universe." That's not what is being said. What is being said is any life-permitting universe is improbable and our universe is highly improbable. Nevertheless, our universe exists and so we need to figure out how this happened. Blind luck? Or somebody fiddling with the dials?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'll make this as simple as possible.

Which one of Krauss' arguments did you find convincing?

What I saw was Krauss' equivocating nonbeing and a quantum vacuum while trying to weasel his way out of the universe being past-finite by saying it isn't certain. Well, of course it isn't certain that the universe had a beginning. Besides, Craig never made that claim. The point he was making is that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. And guess what? Krauss conceded to that point!

If the natural world has a cause, then it does follow that it is God--or a being very much like God. This is because the cause would need to be something in a category outside of nature. The cause would need to be tremendously powerful--or sufficiently powerful to create a natural world like the one we reside in. It would also need to be very intelligent because the natural world appears to be ordered and is incredibly improbable as demonstrated by science (the cosmological constants). It would need to possess some sort of will because a necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have caused a past-infinite universe; however, we observe a past-finite universe. The cause would have also existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of space-time.

Sounds like God to me.

Sounds the Flame Imperishable to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

An unembodied mind possessing sufficient intelligence and power to create a natural world like ours seems more plausible to me than the natural world coming into existence uncaused from nonbeing or the natural world being past-infinite.

And where does the unembodied mind come from? "It always existed." Then why is not also plausible that the universe always existed in some form or another? "Because the universe had a beginning." According to whom? "Cosmology." Actually, cosmology takes us to a certain point, but we can't really "see" any further because physical principles start to break down at the tremendous densities predominant in the early universe. Hawking comments that we might as well treat it "as the beginning", since we can't know anything of what came before, but that is different from knowing that it is the absolute "beginning" in the sense in which you use the word.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I've noticed you keep using the term argument from ignorance. I decided to look it up and according to philosophy.lander.edu it means,

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

I don't see how I or Dr. Craig are guilty of this. Could you elaborate?

The fallacy is committed because you are accepting the "god hypothesis" as true, not because you have solid evidence to prove God's existence, you are accepting of it because it has not been proven wrong.

Interestingly enough, after reading this definition, I've realized that many atheists are guilty of committing this fallacy when they say things like, "God doesn't exist because His existence has not been proven."

Put that way, you are correct, that is an argument from ignorance. However, that's also not the position an Atheist takes on the question of God.

The Atheistic position is since we have no evidence that demonstrates God exists, believing he exists is an unjustified position. That is not an assertion that God doesn't exist, it is merely a lack of belief.

Put another way, if I asked if you believe I have $100 in my wallet right now, you have no evidence to hold a positive belief that I do, but you also have no justification to assert that I don't. The only justifiable position is to withhold belief until you see more evidence. That is the atheistic position in regards to God, and is not an argument from ignorance.

Nonbeing just means nonexistence or not anything. The "absence of space and time" doesn't do the word justice because there may be other categories of existence that fall outside of space-time.

Such as? And if there was a true state of absolute nothingness, then how did God exist? Is he not something?

Actually "nothing," "nonbeing," and "not anything" has always meant the same thing, irrespective of what theologians think. It's atheists like Dr. Krauss who are trying to redefine words. If you look up nonbeing in the dictionary, you're not going to find, "A quantum vacuum."

If you read a universe from nothing, he gives an explanation why he uses the definition he does. Oddly enough, his reasoning deals bluntly with the very argument you are trying to make.

Up until recently, empty space was a good enough definition for nothing. Then we learned more and discovered there was lots going on in empty space. Theologians have tried to redefine nothing a number of times ever since, and he even remarks about one theologian who has gone as far as to define it as "the state in which only god can make something", which is an argument by fiat.

The problem with your argument is, if there was ever truly a state of absolute nothingness, then your God could not have existed either. It's a dead end argument for theists, in order to defend their position, they must admit something (i.e. God) has always existed in some form, and that opens the door to other things potentially existing too.

I think you misunderstood my point. If you remember I was talking about the natural world, which would encompass even a multiverse. It would encompass any material manifold. And if we're talking about what caused the natural world, then obviously it couldn't be... the natural world.

Cause and effect is a mechanism dependent on time as we know it. If we are in a place where there is no time, cause and effect also ceases to be. So, in the multiverse, if it is outside of time, using the laws that govern how things work in our universe is incorrect.

Our universe has a finite beginning, we can't say the same for the multiverse (if it exists). It may indeed be eternal, for lack of a better word.

I'm saying our universe is an improbable life-permitting universe. If our universe is due to chance, then we're very... very lucky--or our universe was intended by an intelligence.

If we're talking about a one-off event, you are correct, we would be very lucky. However if there's thousands, millions or even billions of universes out there, we're not lucky at all, the law of averages says the more universes exist, the more likely one that can support life will come about.

Another great example I know to illustrate the point is that in the universe, there is hundreds of billions of planets. If the odds of life arising is one in a billion (extremely long odds), even then life would still be virtually guaranteed to form all over the universe.

The same goes with the multiverse, there could be new universes forming all the time, there could be trillions of universes or more. Odds are most can't support life, however some of them are bound to not only support, but contain life within them.

The solution to what caused the first computer is more complex and intelligent than the computer itself. Is it not?

In any case, yes, I do think it is more plausible that our improbable life-permitting universe was produced by a cause which possesses intelligence rather than our improbable life-permitting universe coming into being uncaused from nonbeing. The latter is absurd.

First off, who said anything about non being?
Secondly, you have only served to bump the infinite regress back a step. Where did your God come from? Positing something more complex to solve a less complex situation makes no sense in this scenario.

And how can you consider a disembodied mind even plausible? We have no examples at all of a mind or consciousness existing outside of a physical brain. How can you even seriously posit that as a reasonable belief?

I don't know of anyone who thinks God was created. When philosophers and theologians talk about God, they're normally talking about a maximally great necessary being (cannot fail to exist).

And where's their justification for that? Simply trying to define him into existence is not compelling, it's semantic nonsense.

True and this is one way to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for life. However, the multiverse hypothesis is a hypothesis devoid of any empirical evidence. We don't even evidence for one more universe, let alone an infinite number. Moreover, scientists have realized that the mechanism that would generate an infinite number of universes would exhibit fine-tuning in itself and it too would be incredibly improbable.

Actually much of what we understand about physics now basically requires a multiverse to exist. You are correct in that it can't be definitively proven, however we do have pretty solid evidence that points towards one existing.

Who is saying that though? Who is saying, "Boy, I'm surprised I live in a life-permitting universe." That's not what is being said. What is being said is any life-permitting universe is improbable and our universe is highly improbable. Nevertheless, our universe exists and so we need to figure out how this happened. Blind luck? Or somebody fiddling with the dials?

Until you can demonstrate that the dials exist, and someone exists who can fiddle with those dials, you have an unjustified proposition. We don't even know that the "fine tuning" could have turned out any other way than it did.

 

[Davian]

I'll make this as simple as possible.

Which one of Krauss' arguments did you find convincing?

What I saw was Krauss' equivocating nonbeing and a quantum vacuum while trying to weasel his way out of the universe being past-finite by saying it isn't certain. Well, of course it isn't certain that the universe had a beginning. Besides, Craig never made that claim. The point he was making is that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. And guess what? Krauss conceded to that point!

If the natural world has a cause,

Does it, in the way we observe cause-and-effect within this universe?

then it does follow that it is God--or a being very much like God.

What is "God" like? How do we test that?

This is because the cause would need to be something in a category outside of nature.

Where is this "outside" of nature?

The cause would need to be tremendously powerful--or sufficiently powerful to create a natural world like the one we reside in.

Based on scientific observations, as mentioned by Krauss, the universe appears to have a net energy level of zero. That being said, how powerful does this "God" need to be? Where did this power come from? Will it run out? Is God subject to entropy?

It would also need to be very intelligent because the natural world appears to be ordered

Appearances can be deceiving. Were you able to reconcile gravitational and quantum field descriptions of nature? It would be the current stumbling block in establishing the unified theory of everything.

and is incredibly improbable as demonstrated by science (the cosmological constants).

So what are those odds? Show your math.

It would need to possess some sort of will because a necessary and eternal cause devoid of the ability to refrain from producing effects would have caused a past-infinite universe; however, we observe a past-finite universe. The cause would have also existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of space-time.

You just used the word "prior" and "timeless" in the same sentence. How does that work? How long does a "timeless" thing wait before doing anything?

Sounds like God to me.

Your particular "God", of course. Surprise.

As for Krauss' e-mail exchange with Alexander Vilenkin, Craig decided to e-mail Vilenkin himself so he could get his hands on the UNEDITED version of the e-mail Krauss shared in his powerpoint presentation. He found out that Krauss was indeed trying to mislead the audience and that Vilenkin thinks Craig accurately represents his scientific viewpoints, but doesn't agree with the theological conclusions that Craig draws from them. You can find all of this on Craig's website, Reasonable Faith (.org). I'm not allowed to post links because I'm a noob, but you can find Craig's exchange with Vilenkin on that site under Writings > Q&A > #336.

You can quote the relevant text, as long as you credit the source.

 

[Davian]

An unembodied mind <snip>

The only "minds" observed by science are as emergent processes of brains. How does this process happen without a brain?

Is that like material-free oxidation?

And, as a process, how can a process happen if it is timeless?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

An unembodied mind possessing sufficient intelligence and power to create a natural world like ours seems more plausible to me than

We don't even know if this unembodied mind can possibly exist. We don't even if it could possibly create something. Let alone, how this would be possible. We don't even know what it is, neither approximately nor exactly. So, there is no real basis for saying "makes more sense to me than such-and-such."

the natural world coming into existence uncaused from nonbeing or the natural world being past-infinite.

A necessary cause would produce infinite effects because it would have always existed, unless it had the ability to choose to create or refrain.

Or so the assertion goes. But one problem is, there is no libertarian free will, and it certainly is not the magical problem solver that it often cast as. Moreover, I don't see how you would ever make the point about what a necessary cause would do. Seems like an empty assertion.

(And as an aside, atemporal decision??)

The universe appears to be a highly improbable life-permitting universe.

The universe operates in a logical manner and can be rationally understood.

Well ... the observable universe may well be rational understandable, even if this means really hard work and skin deep understanding at times.

But the whole of existence (also sometimes called Universe, although with a capital U)? I am much less optimistic.

To me, it seems like whatever caused the universe is a sentient being. Makes sense to me.

Can't make sense. Because there is no real case.

There is a lot of literature on this subject that you could read if you're still interested. Books like Reasonable Faith or The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. You may still not agree, but at least you'd be disagreeing with a more articulate and accurate view.

I am certainly not going to read these books. But I am familiar with the arguments, thanks. (I've probably seen things that you wouldn't believe. )

 

[Matt1128]

And where does the unembodied mind come from? "It always existed."

Yes, God has always existed.

Then why is not also plausible that the universe always existed in some form or another? "Because the universe had a beginning." According to whom? "Cosmology."

...
Why are you asking questions and then answering them yourself?
[qutoe]Actually, cosmology takes us to a certain point, but we can't really "see" any further because physical principles start to break down at the tremendous densities predominant in the early universe.[/quote]
Yes, but that does nothing to refute the fact that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning.
Then there are the logical arguments you can make against a past-infinite universe. For instance, if the universe is past-infinite, then that means the universe would have gone through an actually infinite number of processes or events before the present. So how are we observing the present? The idea that we can observe the present and there being an actually infinite number of past events appears to be logically incoherent.

The fallacy is committed because you are accepting the "god hypothesis" as true, not because you have solid evidence to prove God's existence, you are accepting of it because it has not been proven wrong.

I believe God exists for a multitude of reasons. I believe He exists because I sense Him, but also because I believe He is the best explanation for the origin of the cosmos. I actually believe that atheism is an irrational stance.

The Atheistic position is since we have no evidence that demonstrates God exists, believing he exists is an unjustified position.

Could you clarify what you mean by evidence? And could you provide some example s of what you'd expect in a world where God did exist?
But not believing in the existence of God is not the same as believing that God doesn't exist. The agnostic doesn't believe in the existence of God either.
Let me put it this way. If I thought all of the arguments for God's existence were bad, then I wouldn't become an atheist. I would become agnostic. And if I could provide some good arguments against God's existence, then I'd become atheist.

Put another way, if I asked if you believe I have $100 in my wallet right now, you have no evidence to hold a positive belief that I do, but you also have no justification to assert that I don't. The only justifiable position is to withhold belief until you see more evidence.

Which is agnosticism. But I've noticed a lot of atheists are trying to hijack that term now and claim it as their own.

That is the atheistic position in regards to God, and is not an argument from ignorance.

I've heard and read many atheists say, "God's existence hasn't been proven; therefore, God doesn't exist." In fact, that's what it seems like you're doing right now, but you're trying to act as though you're not. But in all honestly, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics in this area. It's just a waste of time.
I think there are good arguments for God's existence and I do not think there are any good arguments against God's existence. I do not think there are good reasons to be atheist.

Such as?

What I'm saying is there might be other forms of existence besides matter and energy. I believe God is spirit, for instance. He certainly exists but is something different from matter and energy.

And if there was a true state of absolute nothingness

I do not think there was just nonbeing because I believe in God. On the other hand, the atheist would need to believe that there was nonbeing (not anything) then poof the universe.

If you read a universe from nothing, he gives an explanation why he uses the definition he does. Oddly enough, his reasoning deals bluntly with the very argument you are trying to make.

I think Lawrence Krauss is a bit of a hack to be honest... there is no reason to refer to the quantum vacuum as nothing or nonbeing unless you're trying to sell something. In his case it's atheism.

Up until recently, empty space was a good enough definition for nothing.

Empty space was certainly not my definition of nothing. Nothing is nonbeing or not anything.

Theologians have tried to redefine nothing a number of times ever since

I'm really confused as to why you keep saying theologians are the ones defining nothing and nonbeing... as far as I know, nonbeing has meant not anything for reasons having nothing to do with theologians. That's just the English language.

they must admit something (i.e. God) has always existed in some form, and that opens the door to other things potentially existing too.

Unfortunately there is no evidence for a past-infinite universe and the idea of a past-infinite universe appears to be logically incoherent. On the other hand, there are good arguments for the existence of God and there isn't anything logically incoherent about an eternal enembodied mind.

Cause and effect is a mechanism dependent on time as we know it. If we are in a place where there is no time, cause and effect also ceases to be.

I just see time as change and not a cosmic policeman. So it doesn't make sense to me to say cause and effect requires time. My idea of timelessness is a state in which there were no events but that's not the same thing as saying events can't take place; and once you introduce events then there is time, but only as a useful description.

So, in the multiverse, if it is outside of time

Because of the nature of matter and energy I do not think it's logically possible for the multiverse to exist without "time."
I think we've gone off on a tangent though... when talking about the cause of the natural world, one cannot invoke the natural world; and the term natural world encompasses the multiverse.

Our universe has a finite beginning, we can't say the same for the multiverse (if it exists). It may indeed be eternal, for lack of a better word.

Well, we don't have any empirical evidence for a multiverse. I thought atheists were big on that? Anywho, like I said before, contemporary science points to the universe having a beginning and the scientific consensus (for now) seems to be that the universe is all there is.

If we're talking about a one-off event, you are correct, we would be very lucky. However if there's thousands, millions or even billions of universes out there, we're not lucky at all, the law of averages says the more universes exist, the more likely one that can support life will come about.

There's no evidence of there being two universes let alone a billion or infinite number and if you read more into this you'd find that scientists are realizing that the mechanism which would be needed to generate these universes would require fine-tuning in itself and would also be incredibly improbable.

First off, who said anything about non being?

If you're an atheist you're left with two general explanations. 1) The natural world is past-infinite or 2) The natural world came into being uncaused from nonbeing. Unfortunately for the atheist both of these explanations are either illogical or fly in the face of contemporary scientific evidence.

Secondly, you have only served to bump the infinite regress back a step. Where did your God come from?

I think we already went over this. God didn't come from anywhere. God is a necessary being.

Positing something more complex to solve a less complex situation makes no sense in this scenario.

Obviously this isn't good logic. It isn't unusual for causes to be more complex than the effects they cause.
What you should be worrying about is the idea of nonbeing producing anything, let alone a universe.

And how can you consider a disembodied mind even plausible? We have no examples at all of a mind or consciousness existing outside of a physical brain.

I wouldn't expect there to be. Let's say that all of us have immaterial minds that us our brains like an instrument. Let's say that is true. In such a world, what examples would you expect there to be?

And where's their justification for that? Simply trying to define him into existence is not compelling, it's semantic nonsense.

Well, we're arguing over the existence of God so you should probably get your definitions straightened out. Whether or not you think God exists is a different topic. What we're discussing now are definitions and I don't know of anyone who defines God as a created being.

Actually much of what we understand about physics now basically requires a multiverse to exist. You are correct in that it can't be definitively proven, however we do have pretty solid evidence that points towards one existing.

It's called the multiverse hypothesis for a reason and there is no empirical evidence for its existence, only pure speculation.
But even if it did exist it wouldn't change anything. The fine-tuning of the mechanism that produces an infinite number of universes would still need to be explained. Blind luck? Or somebody fiddling with the dials? And the BVG theorem predicts that even a multiverse would have a beginning.

You see, eventually, you're going to be forced to choose between the two explanations that you've left yourself with: 1) the natural world come into being uncaused from nonbeing or 2) the natural world is past-infinite. Like I said before, both of these explanations are irrational and fly in the face of contemporary scientific evidence.

 

[Matt1128]

We don't even know if this unembodied mind can possibly exist.

I believe an unembodied mind could possibly exist. I can imagine another category of existence that falls outside of matter and energy that may exist--and a being that falls into this other category that behaves in a way akin to a brain.

And, as a process, how can a process happen if it is timeless?

I don't think processes can occur without creating events and thus time.

However, I do not believe God is a giant physical brain with neurons and such firing off. I believe He is in a category other than physical reality that operates much like a brain does but in other ways very much different. God is omniscient so He wouldn't need to think or go through a thinking process, for instance. God exists all at once in a sense and isn't a collection of processes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, God has always existed.

What is your evidence for that?

...
Why are you asking questions and then answering them yourself?

Following Wittgenstein's style in Investigations. I find it useful at times.

Yes, but that does nothing to refute the fact that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning.

But not necessarily the kind of 'beginning' you mean.

Then there are the logical arguments you can make against a past-infinite universe. For instance, if the universe is past-infinite, then that means the universe would have gone through an actually infinite number of processes or events before the present. So how are we observing the present? The idea that we can observe the present and there being an actually infinite number of past events appears to be logically incoherent.

I don't see how it is incoherent. Perhaps you could expound on that?

In my view, the concept of a causal agent that is timeless and spaceless (and yet causally efficacious) is incoherent.

I believe God exists for a multitude of reasons. I believe He exists because I sense Him, but also because I believe He is the best explanation for the origin of the cosmos. I actually believe that atheism is an irrational stance.

To qualify as an explanation, the concept would actually have to do some explaining. "God did it" appears like an explanation on the surface, but what explaining does it actually do?

Could you clarify what you mean by evidence? And could you provide some example s of what you'd expect in a world where God did exist?
But not believing in the existence of God is not the same as believing that God doesn't exist. The agnostic doesn't believe in the existence of God either.
Let me put it this way. If I thought all of the arguments for God's existence were bad, then I wouldn't become an atheist. I would become agnostic. And if I could provide some good arguments against God's existence, then I'd become atheist.

Which is agnosticism. But I've noticed a lot of atheists are trying to hijack that term now and claim it as their own.

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. Theism and atheism pertains to belief, or there lack of. Agnosticism isn't some sort of "middle ground" between atheism and theism.

I've heard and read many atheists say, "God's existence hasn't been proven; therefore, God doesn't exist." In fact, that's what it seems like you're doing right now, but you're trying to act as though you're not. But in all honestly, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics in this area. It's just a waste of time.
I think there are good arguments for God's existence and I do not think there are any good arguments against God's existence. I do not think there are good reasons to be atheist.

Similarly, I do not think there are good arguments for a deity. The lack of a compelling case for deities leads me to a lack of belief in them (i.e., atheism).

What I'm saying is there might be other forms of existence besides matter and energy. I believe God is spirit, for instance. He certainly exists but is something different from matter and energy.

How does he interact with matter and energy? It is one thing to posit something else - something supernatural - but it's quite another to elucidate how the supernatural interacts with the natural given its quintessential different-ness.

I do not think there was just nonbeing because I believe in God. On the other hand, the atheist would need to believe that there was nonbeing (not anything) then poof the universe.

The atheist would not need to believe that at all.

My position is, I think, an honest one: I don't know the process of how universes come into being. I don't pretend to know.

Empty space was certainly not my definition of nothing. Nothing is nonbeing or not anything.

Is it even possible for that kind of pure Platonic nothing-ness to exist?

I'm really confused as to why you keep saying theologians are the ones defining nothing and nonbeing... as far as I know, nonbeing has meant not anything for reasons having nothing to do with theologians. That's just the English language.

To borrow from Wittgenstein: "Philosophical problems arise when language goes on a holiday." That the concept 'nothing' has meaning in a particular context does not necessarily mean that it has meaning in every other context. Concepts can break down when stretched and strained.

Unfortunately there is no evidence for a past-infinite universe and the idea of a past-infinite universe appears to be logically incoherent.

Why is it logically incoherent? Several cosmologists are working in this area.

On the other hand, there are good arguments for the existence of God and there isn't anything logically incoherent about an eternal enembodied mind.

Why not something else? Why not an eternal flame? Much more simple and parsimonious compared to a psychological entity, especially one that is putatively unembodied.

I just see time as change and not a cosmic policeman. So it doesn't make sense to me to say cause and effect requires time. My idea of timelessness is a state in which there were no events but that's not the same thing as saying events can't take place; and once you introduce events then there is time, but only as a useful description.

Because of the nature of matter and energy I do not think it's logically possible for the multiverse to exist without "time."
I think we've gone off on a tangent though... when talking about the cause of the natural world, one cannot invoke the natural world; and the term natural world encompasses the multiverse.

The use of the word 'nature' can shift as the horizon shifts. For instance, at one point the boundary of 'nature' was our solar system. As we saw further to yet another horizon the boundary of 'nature' shifted to encompass the entirety of our galaxy. In the 20th century new discoveries in astronomy once again prompted a reconceptualisation of nature's boundaries. At present, we are struggling to see beyond the horizon of the early universe - the first moments following the Big Bang. Should we thus conclude that there lies the final boundary of 'nature'?

I think we already went over this. God didn't come from anywhere. God is a necessary being.

As Carl Sagan would say, and I'm crudely paraphrasing here, "Why not save a step and conclude that the universe necessarily exists?" I'm reminded of a GIF which read: "Occam's Razor. It slices. It dices. It eliminates superfluous supernatural entities."

Obviously this isn't good logic. It isn't unusual for causes to be more complex than the effects they cause.

It's also unusual for causes to be wholly unlike the effects they cause. Yet the cosmological argument postulates the existence of a cause that is entirely unlike its effect. Why do religious apologists ignore the 'unusual' when it suits them? It's unusual for minds to go around unembodied. It's unusual for 'causes' to exist in no space and at no time. It's unusual for a thinking agent to be able to have their thinking unfold without the passage of time. Yet none of these unusual elements warrant the apologist's concern when he incorporates them into an argument for God's existence?

What you should be worrying about is the idea of nonbeing producing anything, let alone a universe.

This gets us back to the discussion of whether the concept 'nothing' has a pure Platonic form.

It's called the multiverse hypothesis for a reason and there is no empirical evidence for its existence, only pure speculation.

Pure speculation would also apply to theistic hypotheses. The difference, however, is that scientific speculation at least aims toward making testable models. I am not aware of any theists who would even entertain the idea of turning theistic speculation over to a scientific process of falsification and confirmation. Many seem to think that theistic hypotheses are unfalsifiable even in principle, meaning that they stand outside the purview of science.

Given the heterogeneity among rival theistic hypotheses, one wonders how one should reason through them all to arrive at an unequivocal answer that bears some semblance of objectivity. So far, all theists have been able to produce are claims of supernatural revelation written in hallowed texts which we are asked to believe on faith. What the theist lacks is a workable epistemology; some way of showing that supernatural claims bear out the truth of what they claim.

 

[ranunculus]

The only "minds" observed by science are as emergent processes of brains. How does this process happen without a brain?

I once asked Elio this question.

Immaterial minds have never been shown to exist.
Please give me an example of a mind that isn't contingent on a brain.

This was the response I received:

I guess the words just typed in your post appeared there by themselves!

After verifying my corporeal form I decided to refrain from further discussion.

 

[Beechwell]

Yes, God has always existed.

remember that according to both Craig and the rest of your post, "always" is finite (at last in the past). time is a property if the physical universe.
for some reason Craig seems to argue for and against a past-infinite time at once.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I believe God exists for a multitude of reasons. I believe He exists because I sense Him, but also because I believe He is the best explanation for the origin of the cosmos. I actually believe that atheism is an irrational stance.

Because you "sense him"? Really, that's the best you've got? Ever heard of confirmation bias? And how can you consider him the best explanation when you have no direct evidence for him?

Atheism is not an irrational stance until you have overwhelming evidence to support the existence of a God.

Could you clarify what you mean by evidence? And could you provide some example s of what you'd expect in a world where God did exist?

Evidence is something we can examine or test to verify the claim. If God takes actions that impact the universe, then we can test the impact left by those actions. As for your second question, it depends what God you're talking about, man has created tens of thousands of them.

But not believing in the existence of God is not the same as believing that God doesn't exist. The agnostic doesn't believe in the existence of God either. Let me put it this way. If I thought all of the arguments for God's existence were bad, then I wouldn't become an atheist. I would become agnostic. And if I could provide some good arguments against God's existence, then I'd become atheist.

Which is agnosticism. But I've noticed a lot of atheists are trying to hijack that term now and claim it as their own.

You have your definitions mixed up, Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms, and agnosticism is not a "middle ground" between theism and atheism. That's a mistake many people make.

Atheism or Theism is a binary proposition. You either hold a belief, or you do not hold a belief. If you are undecided, you still don't hold a belief.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism deals with what a person claims to know.

For example:

Gnostic Theist: Someone who claims they know that a God exists (i.e. Billy Graham, and based on your posts, probably you)
Agnostic Theist: Someone who believes that a God exists, but they don't claim they know that for certain.
Agnostic Atheist: Someone who does not believe a God exists, but can not totally rule out the possibility (For example, Richard Dawkins, or Me)
Gnostic Atheist: Someone who claims to know that no Gods exist

Claiming not to know the answer for certain (Agnosticism) says nothing about your beliefs on the matter. That subject is dealt with by the Theism/Atheism question.

I've heard and read many atheists say, "God's existence hasn't been proven; therefore, God doesn't exist." In fact, that's what it seems like you're doing right now, but you're trying to act as though you're not. But in all honestly, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics in this area. It's just a waste of time.
I think there are good arguments for God's existence and I do not think there are any good arguments against God's existence. I do not think there are good reasons to be atheist.

I'd imagine you have misunderstood the arguments from Atheists then, especially if you are accusing me of making that argument.

I've never asserted that God couldn't possibly exist, what I have said is that since we lack evidence, believing he exists is unjustified. It's possible there might be evidence out there that shows a God actually does exist, but until we see that evidence, we have no reason to believe.

That being said, there are certain Gods we can effectively disprove by looking at our own history. We can go up on Mount Olympus and see that the Greek Gods aren't there (although they could technically be hiding, or have moved somewhere else), but we can plausibly say that the Greek Gods aren't up on Mount Olympus like the myths say they are. Yahweh is another God we can effectively disprove by a look into our own history.

However, a purely deistic view of God probably could never be totally disproven. However again, without evidence, we have no reason to believe one exists.

What I'm saying is there might be other forms of existence besides matter and energy. I believe God is spirit, for instance. He certainly exists but is something different from matter and energy.

Sure, there "might" be, there might be dozens of other forms of existence. What reason do you have to believe there actually are though?

I do not think there was just nonbeing because I believe in God. On the other hand, the atheist would need to believe that there was nonbeing (not anything) then poof the universe.

Not at all, for example, I don't believe that. You're strawmanning the beliefs of Atheists.

I think Lawrence Krauss is a bit of a hack to be honest... there is no reason to refer to the quantum vacuum as nothing or nonbeing unless you're trying to sell something. In his case it's atheism.

Well then, since you, someone completely uneducated in the realm of Quantum Physics decides to label Lawrence Krauss, one of the top quantum physicists around a hack... that obviously means something.

Do you even know what a quantum vacuum is?

Empty space was certainly not my definition of nothing. Nothing is nonbeing or not anything.

I didn't say it was your definition, I said until fairly recently (within the last century) empty space was a good enough definition, in that time it has changed as our knowledge improved.

I'm really confused as to why you keep saying theologians are the ones defining nothing and nonbeing... as far as I know, nonbeing has meant not anything for reasons having nothing to do with theologians. That's just the English language.

I've explained as best as I can. If you want the reasons for Krauss' definition directly, I suggest you read his book.

Unfortunately there is no evidence for a past-infinite universe and the idea of a past-infinite universe appears to be logically incoherent. On the other hand, there are good arguments for the existence of God and there isn't anything logically incoherent about an eternal enembodied mind.

I agree, there is no evidence for a past infinite universe, we know the big bang happened about 13.72 billion years ago. As for a multiverse however, (assuming one exists), that may or may not be infinite, we don't know.

As for an eternal unembodied mind, while anything may be possible that we haven't been able to categorically disprove, we have absolutely no examples of minds or intelligence existing outside of a physical brain. Therefore asserting one exists without evidence or examples it's even possible is logically incoherent.

I just see time as change and not a cosmic policeman. So it doesn't make sense to me to say cause and effect requires time. My idea of timelessness is a state in which there were no events but that's not the same thing as saying events can't take place; and once you introduce events then there is time, but only as a useful description.

How you see it doesn't matter as to how it is.

Because of the nature of matter and energy I do not think it's logically possible for the multiverse to exist without "time."
I think we've gone off on a tangent though... when talking about the cause of the natural world, one cannot invoke the natural world; and the term natural world encompasses the multiverse.

Sure you can, because the multiverse is outside of the universe, it would necessarily preexist the universe as we know it.

How was the multiverse formed? We don't have anywhere near enough evidence at this point to even guess. The only justifiable answer is to say we just don't know, and keep looking for further evidence.

Even if you are correct and God did it, asserting that God did it at this point is still an argument from ignorance. You just don't have the evidence. For that matter however, there's lots of reasons against that idea as well.

Well, we don't have any empirical evidence for a multiverse. I thought atheists were big on that? Anywho, like I said before, contemporary science points to the universe having a beginning and the scientific consensus (for now) seems to be that the universe is all there is.

Which is why I've added the disclaimer multiple times (assuming one exists), etc, because we don't know for sure. We do have compelling evidence that points that way, but we can't prove it. Right now based on evidence it's the most plausible explanation, but that could be wrong.

There's no evidence of there being two universes let alone a billion or infinite number and if you read more into this you'd find that scientists are realizing that the mechanism which would be needed to generate these universes would require fine-tuning in itself and would also be incredibly improbable.

If the models are correct, then it's very likely more universes exist. However, fine tuning would not be required at all... how do you even arrive at that conclusion?

If you're an atheist you're left with two general explanations. 1) The natural world is past-infinite or 2) The natural world came into being uncaused from nonbeing. Unfortunately for the atheist both of these explanations are either illogical or fly in the face of contemporary scientific evidence.

False Dichotomy, we don't know those are the only two options.

I think we already went over this. God didn't come from anywhere. God is a necessary being.

Can you show your evidence? All you're doing right now is trying to define him into existence by playing word games

Obviously this isn't good logic. It isn't unusual for causes to be more complex than the effects they cause.
What you should be worrying about is the idea of nonbeing producing anything, let alone a universe.

You're missing the point, your argument is that the universe is too complex to have come about by natural means. So your way around that, despite no evidence, is to invent something infinitely more complex that just happened to exist.

That is bad logic.

I wouldn't expect there to be. Let's say that all of us have immaterial minds that us our brains like an instrument. Let's say that is true. In such a world, what examples would you expect there to be?

If the world worked that way, then you wouldn't see widescale personality changes or total personality resets caused by either brain damage, or stimulating areas of someone's brain.

For example, we can use a radio station. If you damage your radio (i.e. brain), you may not get the signal from the station as clearly (i.e. your disembodied mind), however it wouldn't change the station itself from a classic rock to top 40 station.

If your mind exists independently of your body, it would not be affected by physical brain damage, at worst, you'd lose the signal strength. That's not what we see from patients with brain damage.

Well, we're arguing over the existence of God so you should probably get your definitions straightened out. Whether or not you think God exists is a different topic. What we're discussing now are definitions and I don't know of anyone who defines God as a created being.

Of course they don't, that would be inconvenient for their argument, it would also subvert the idea of a God. But still, all they are doing is bumping an infinite regress up a step, invoking God solves nothing.

It's called the multiverse hypothesis for a reason and there is no empirical evidence for its existence, only pure speculation.
But even if it did exist it wouldn't change anything. The fine-tuning of the mechanism that produces an infinite number of universes would still need to be explained. Blind luck? Or somebody fiddling with the dials? And the BVG theorem predicts that even a multiverse would have a beginning.

If there's billions of places that have exited inflation, there's no fine tuning required, you're going to get lots of differently "tuned" areas by pure chance. Some will be supportive of life, some won't be.

Regardless, even if this is the only universe, the fact it is supportive of life (as you put it "tuned") still doesn't lead at all to a God. We don't know if it's physically possible that it could be "tuned" any other way than it is, and if it can be, there may be multiple different tunings that are supportive of life. Perhaps not our life, but some form of life.

You see, eventually, you're going to be forced to choose between the two explanations that you've left yourself with: 1) the natural world come into being uncaused from nonbeing or 2) the natural world is past-infinite. Like I said before, both of these explanations are irrational and fly in the face of contemporary scientific evidence.

And again, a false dichotomy. I don't believe either one of those are the explanation. However, for that matter, your God also falls into those categories.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Even if you are correct and God did it, asserting that God did it at this point is still an argument from ignorance. You just don't have the evidence. For that matter however, there's lots of reasons against that idea as well.

It would be "correct" in the same sense that a broken clock is "correct" twice a day. It may happen to fall upon the correct time, but as a timekeeping device it is useless; it doesn't work.

 

[Matt1128]

What is your evidence for that?

We're arguing over the existence of God and part of the definition of God is an eternal being. Or at least that's the kind of God I'm arguing for.

As for my evidence for God's existence, I've been talking about it in this very thread. Read my previous posts.

Following Wittgenstein's style in Investigations. I find it useful at times.

Oh, well I do that too, but I don't see the point in you sharing your internal monologue.

But not necessarily the kind of 'beginning' you mean.

The beginning of matter and energy. What I call the natural world. So it is the beginning I mean. But even if the beginning science talks about isn't good enough, the question can still be asked, "Is the natural world past-finite?" Science may not know the answer, but we can still think about the implications of a past-finite or infinite universe.

I don't see how it is incoherent. Perhaps you could expound on that?

It's impossible for one to reach an actually infinite quantity of something by successive addition. For instance, counting 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., until you reach an actual infinite. What you'd get instead is a very large number that you could always add 1 more to. But if the universe is past-infinite, then you'd have to believe that there is an actual infinite number of past events; and if there isn't an actual infinite number of past events, then it is a very large number and thus finite. What's more, this 'actual infinite' number of events would perpetually grow because new events are always occurring, but that appears logically incoherent as well. If there is an 'actual infinite' number of something, then adding to it shouldn't make it any bigger. And if it does, then wouldn't that mean it wasn't an actual infinite before? The logical problems with a past-infinite universe are endless. It would take a lot of faith to believe the universe is past-infinite.

In my view, the concept of a causal agent that is timeless and spaceless (and yet causally efficacious) is incoherent.

I think I did a fine job explaining the problems with a past-infinite universe. All you did here was make an assertion. Could you explain yourself? I'm not really keeping track of who I'm talking to, but I could have sworn that I answered this question in a previous post.

To qualify as an explanation, the concept would actually have to do some explaining. "God did it" appears like an explanation on the surface, but what explaining does it actually do?

It would explain the origin of the universe and if the Bible is God's word, then we would know the purpose of it and us.

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. Theism and atheism pertains to belief, or there lack of. Agnosticism isn't some sort of "middle ground" between atheism and theism.

I don't think there is any point here though.

The agnostic would say you cannot demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God; therefore, they neither believe or disbelieve in God. At least that's what the rational agnostic would do. On the other hand, the atheist seems to think there are good reasons to disbelieve in the existence of God. I haven't seen any of them though, just a lot of bad ones.

Similarly, I do not think there are good arguments for a deity. The lack of a compelling case for deities leads me to a lack of belief in them (i.e., atheism).

Isn't this argument from ignorance? "There is no evidence of God; therefore, God doesn't exist"?

What kind of evidence would you expect if God did exist?

Personally, it wouldn't be enough for me to merely say, "There arguments for such and such are weak; therefore, such and such doesn't exist--or I don't believe it exists." That seems weak. I'd try to make some arguments against whatever it was I was trying to disprove. "If X existed, then wouldn't there be Y? But there isn't Y; therefore, X probably doesn't exist."

One problem I've noticed with atheists is that they say things like there is no evidence for God, but they never define evidence.

How does he interact with matter and energy? It is one thing to posit something else - something supernatural - but it's quite another to elucidate how the supernatural interacts with the natural given its quintessential different-ness.

One can see something as the best explanation without knowing how it works.

Besides, I don't see any reason to think there would be a problem with another category of existence interacting with physical existence. Could you please explain why you think there would be?

The atheist would not need to believe that at all.

True, they could stick their head in the sand or say "I don't know," but nobody can deny that atheism has implications just like any other belief system. If God doesn't exist then the universe either popped into being uncaused from nonbeing or it is past-infinite. If you think this is wrong, then please provide another possible explanation. Maybe there's another one I'm not thinking of.

I don't pretend to know with any certainty either. I deal in plausibility and I don't think the possible explanations that atheism leaves us with are plausible.

Is it even possible for that kind of pure Platonic nothing-ness to exist?

I wouldn't really say it exists, at least in the sense we normally describe how things exist. I would say nonbeing is nonexistence. The absence of existence. If everything that existed ceased to exist then that would be an example of nonbeing, would it not?

If the natural world is past-finite then prior to the existence of it there was not anything (if you're a naturalist, anyway).

Why not something else? Why not an eternal flame? Much more simple and parsimonious compared to a psychological entity, especially one that is putatively unembodied.

An eternal flame would be physical and thus would run into the same issues as a past-infinite universe. Anything physical can be broken down into internal events and processes and if something physical has been around for an infinite time, then that means the flame has been through an infinite number of states. Then one can ask how is it in its present state if it has gone through an infinite number of past states. Then you start to realize the flame would have to be completely static for it to make any sense, but then one has to wonder how a completely static physical manifold could cause anything.

As Carl Sagan would say, and I'm crudely paraphrasing here, "Why not save a step and conclude that the universe necessarily exists?"

I already explained the issue with a past-infinite universe.

A necessary universe would be even more nuts because when you say something exists necessarily, then what you're saying is it couldn't have failed to exist. And when you analyze that statement even more, that means that the universe and all it's properties, including fine-tuning, couldn't have been different. That's if the universe is necessary.

"Occam's Razor. It slices. It dices. It eliminates superfluous supernatural entities."

It's unfortunate so many people misuse Occam's razor. Occam's razor is but one of many ways one is supposed to evaluate a possible explanation. If we just used Occam's razor to evaluate explanations, then we would have never made any progress in science because the correct explanation isn't always the simplest. Then you also have to evaluate what one means by simple. Is the universe popping into existence from nonbeing simple? I guess it's simple in the sense that it invokes magic...

It's also unusual for causes to be wholly unlike the effects they cause. Yet the cosmological argument postulates the existence of a cause that is entirely unlike its effect.

To be honest, I don't see where you're coming from on this one. Like I said before, I don't have any issue imagining another plane of existence that could interact with physical existence.

It's unusual for minds to go around unembodied.

Let me ask you something. Can you imagine another kind of existence that wouldn't fall into the category of nature? If so, could you imagine it producing or forming something that could behave or act in a way similar to how the brain acts?

Pure speculation

would also apply to theistic hypotheses. The difference, however, is that scientific speculation at least aims toward making testable models.

I see this as dishonest because we wouldn't be able to test God. I believe He exists, but let's say He certainly exists for the sake of discussion. Even if He certainly existed, science would be unable to test Him because He would be in a category that falls outside of nature; science is a methodology for observing and testing nature.

Many seem to think that theistic hypotheses are unfalsifiable even in principle, meaning that they stand outside the purview of science.

I do not think God Himself can be falsified by science because of His very nature. But I think one could show how God would be logically incoherent or unlikely to exist. Or one could disprove or prove certain theistic claims.