Why do you believe God exists and why?

[Reasonable Christian]

Because we have no good reason to believe, and your reasons don't fit into good reason, because they're assuming things always work the way we think in terms of observations of other situations where a mind may be necessary (a painting, a builder, etc).

The burden is on theists, because they're multiplying entities beyond necessity and violating Occam's razor. Where is the evidence for your creator? Otherwise the prudent and pragmatic conclusion is the universe doesn't work based on anthropocentric presuppositions that theism is basically founded on: that there must be some exceptional entity that, conveniently, resembles humans and not something wholly other in its cognition.

Seems to me the goalpost shifting and special pleading to boot is done by theists who constantly demand God not be subject to the same standards we'd apply to anything else by claiming it's immaterial, necessary or otherwise conveniently beyond investigation or falsification, yet also by their own admission, was involved in the material world in being able to create it (because otherwise, it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense if it was outside time and space rather than outside present time and space).

So there would logically be forensic evidence of some form or fashion to reach the conclusion that an intelligent agent was involved rather than it just "appearing" that way with specious inferences about "fine tuning" that aren't used in the way they think when scientists claimed it or are grossly misunderstood by philosophers who fancy themselves scientists.

If you're not going to honestly apply the principle you would use to investigate anything else without sufficiently justifying why this one thing is outside of that rational investigation or need for falsification, then you would need to just admit that there's a confirmation bias in play towards this teleological thinking, something you seem to just gloss over, along with its contrast of teleonomy. Or do you not think there's a difference?

There's confirmation bias on all sides of this debate, including yours. You've obviously made up your mind, so there's no point in addressing your points comprehensively. I will only say that (1) Yes, I think that "things always work the way we think in terms of observations of other situations where a mind may be necessary" unless I have good reason to think otherwise, which I do not; (2) I therefore disagree with your presupposition that the universe just "appears" to be designed rather than was designed, and thus that God is beyond rational investigation; (3) God, though immaterial, is certainly not beyond falsification (see every argument against God's existence ever made, e.g. the argument from evil); (4) There are many other arguments for God's existence, which I'm sure your familiar with, although you have only addressed the teleological argument and seem to imply that is the only one on the table. In any event, we appear to be an an impasse. That is fine, and I appreciate the dialog.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

This is not what I am saying. I will try to be more clear. If we have good evidence to support a claim is true we will believe it is true. Any other possible solutions to that claim can be discarded because we already have good evidence to support the claim. However, if we don't have good evidence to believe the claim is true we should not believe it is true until we get the good evidence. We should not believe the best evidence we have becasue we cannot rule out other possibilities. The best evidence cannot be verified to be true until we have good evidence to support the that it is true.

There are many possible solutions to what the shape of the earth is. We can discard them all unless it is a spherical shape because we have good evidence that it is spherical and not any other shape. At one point the best evidence we had was that it was flat.

So when it comes to what is the cause of the universe existing, we cannot use the best evidence for a belief. We do not have good evidence to support that it is a God that created everything because we have no way of ruling out other possibilities that we do not know of yet. If we have good evidence for a God that created everything then we can rule out any other possibility. Do you have that evidence?

I find many of the arguments for God's existence persuasive (e.g. the Kalam cosmological argument and what follows from it about the probable nature of the cause of the universe, the moral argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from consciousness, etc. etc.). Obviously I can't go into every theistic argument in this post, but they are easy to find on the internet, and I assume you're familiar with them. I do plan to bring some of them up for discussion in subsequent threads. If you find all of them wanting, then we simply disagree about what constitutes good evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

I find many of the arguments for God's existence persuasive (e.g. the Kalam cosmological argument and what follows from it about the probable nature of the cause of the universe

Why should I believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? I'm familiar with the Kalaam, so I'm pretty sure I know how you'll answer, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, so can you just tell me briefly why you accept premise 1?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Why should I believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? I'm familiar with the Kalaam, so I'm pretty sure I know how you'll answer, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, so can you just tell me briefly why you accept premise 1?

Because that has been confirmed by observation over and over. Yes, it is possible that our observations of things within the universe don't apply to the beginning of the universe, and thus that the universe is entirely uncaused, but I have no good reason to think that's true.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because that has been confirmed by observation over and over. Yes, it is possible that our observations of things within the universe don't apply to the beginning of the universe, and thus that the universe is entirely uncaused, but I have no good reason to think that's true.

Right. And in every single instance of cause and effect we've ever observed the cause precedes the effect in time. Causality is a temporal concept.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Right. And in every single instance of cause and effect we've ever observed the cause precedes the effect in time. Causality is a temporal concept.

Raising one of my favorite questions: How does a being outside time do anything? Here's another: When does that being do anything?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Right. And in every single instance of cause and effect we've ever observed the cause precedes the effect in time. Causality is a temporal concept.

We exist in time, so it follows that all of the examples of causality we have witnessed have occurred in time. Causality arguably doesn't require time as we know it to operate. The issue is controversial; for example, some quantum physicists believe quantum entangled particles interact instantaneously over large distances, implying causality independent of time. In any event, there's no reason to think that anything springs into existence uncaused in the absence of time. Finally, scientists and philosophers of all stripes don't even agree on what time is exactly.

 

[Moral Orel]

We exist in time, so it follows that all of the examples of causality we have witnessed have occurred in time.

Sure. If we observe something occurring a certain way all the time, then we should conclude that's the way it always works. That's your premise one. So we should conclude that causality only works with time. Are our observations justification or aren't they?

Causality arguably doesn't require time as we know it to operate. The issue is controversial; for example, some quantum physicists believe quantum entangled particles interact instantaneously over large distances, implying causality independent of time

Eh... My understanding of quantum entanglement is that one particle isn't affecting the other particle. It's more like one particle in two different places. What happens to one happens to the other. Whatever I do to particle A, I'm also doing to particle B. I'm the cause, not the particles.

In any event, there's no reason to think that anything springs into existence uncaused in the absence of time.

There's no reason to think anything happens at all in the absence of time. Things only happen because of causes, and causes only work inside time. If you want to open the door to speculation about things that we have never observed then we can just as easily speculate that things happen without a cause at all.

Finally, scientists and philosophers of all stripes don't even agree on what time is exactly.

That doesn't matter. Whatever it is, we recognize through observation that causes precede effects. But again, our observations may not justify our conclusions at all, in which case we can safely throw out premise one.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Sure. If we observe something occurring a certain way all the time, then we should conclude that's the way it always works. That's your premise one. So we should conclude that causality only works with time. Are our observations justification or aren't they?

Eh... My understanding of quantum entanglement is that one particle isn't affecting the other particle. It's more like one particle in two different places. What happens to one happens to the other. Whatever I do to particle A, I'm also doing to particle B. I'm the cause, not the particles.

There's no reason to think anything happens at all in the absence of time. Things only happen because of causes, and causes only work inside time. If you want to open the door to speculation about things that we have never observed then we can just as easily speculate that things happen without a cause at all.

That doesn't matter. Whatever it is, we recognize through observation that causes precede effects. But again, our observations may not justify our conclusions at all, in which case we can safely throw out premise one.

Well, at least we understand each other's positions. If you believe that the universe has always been here or came into existence uncaused (the only two remaining options), that's your business. For me, that is much less reasonable than believing in God. To each their own.

 

[muichimotsu]

There's confirmation bias on all sides of this debate, including yours. You've obviously made up your mind, so there's no point in addressing your points comprehensively. I will only say that (1) Yes, I think that "things always work the way we think in terms of observations of other situations where a mind may be necessary" unless I have good reason to think otherwise, which I do not; (2) I therefore disagree with your presupposition that the universe just "appears" to be designed rather than was designed, and thus that God is beyond rational investigation; (3) God, though immaterial, is certainly not beyond falsification (see every argument against God's existence ever made, e.g. the argument from evil); (4) There are many other arguments for God's existence, which I'm sure your familiar with, although you have only addressed the teleological argument and seem to imply that is the only one on the table. In any event, we appear to be an an impasse. That is fine, and I appreciate the dialog.

You not thinking there's good reason does not invalidate the possibility, especially if you're trying to be as objective as possible. I never claimed freedom from biases, though confirmation bias is one I would seek to avoid by the consideration that there may be alternatives, but there isn't special pleading that can just make an exception for "God" without something more than tautology and question begging

Is God really necessary in regards to the explanations or is it only required based on the assumption that human thought is how all things ought to follow, an anthropic principle that is thoroughly unscientific and irrational.

You don't get to claim it is designed merely because it appears as such, design is not based on credulity, but complex yet simple purposes, which doesn't appear to be the case for the universe: since it is thoroughly hostile to us even in terms of the earth itself, we can't live in many parts of the earth, the planet cannot thus be said to be designed for us, per the puddle analogy Douglas Adams brings up.

Purpose and design aren't the same thing: believing that we have some special goal in mind relative to our place in the universe is not the same as saying the universe had a conscious agent behind its existence: at most, you're claiming we are special, which is an appeal to ignorance in the idea that you're thoroughly convinced and can't conceive of another perspective because then it would betray cognitive dissonance you have in being okay with everything being subject to human whims, but if humanity is rendered a part of nature and not some steward of it, then you can't seemingly deal with it psychologically.

I don't think you understand falsification as well as you think you do, because falsification is not done by logical arguments necessarily and certainly not in the sense that God is agreed to have particular limitations, theologically speaking, because some can try to rationalize otherwise about suffering being part of God's plan or other theodicy. The counter arguments made are the problem in terms of apologetics not being honest about God fundamentally breaking the rules they establish as applied to everything else.

"Immaterial" is not something nearly that agreed upon in metaphysics, not to mention effectively renders it on the same level as numbers and logic itself, so God would appear to just be another construct of human intelligence and not something in itself by necessity

Not sure where you got such a blatant strawman: teleology is not the only argument, but I'm addressing the utter nonsense that comes about from someone who, yet again, entirely IGNORES the contrasting idea of teleonomy. You want to talk about confirmation bias, consider how you continue to gloss over the nuance and just assert your position based on little more than your credulity about it and not seemingly understanding the opposition in the slightest. I'm aware of the counter arguments to some extent and acknowledge I'm fallible, you seem to just think "God makes more sense to me when you consider things from this perspective, thus I'll believe in it,"

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, at least we understand each other's positions. If you believe that the universe has always been here or came into existence uncaused (the only two remaining options), that's your business. For me, that takes more faith than believing in God. To each their own.

No, those aren't the only 2 options, because uncaused in the sense of linear time is not uncaused in the sense that it always was here, you're making a distinction without a real difference with your "alternatives". If quantum variation is a thing, the idea that the universe could basically be "resetting" itself and not be a string of linear events allows for its existence to be explained without the need to appeal to an entity that requires faith.

When you basically throw out the standards you apply to EVERYTHING else and then just assume this thing must exist by "necessity", this ignores the existence versus essence problem, among others and just concludes that experience of consciousness means that it has to somehow precede existence itself in the non conscious sense (like rocks, trees, etc)

You don't appear to even understand faith and how neither definition that tends to come up (faith as the evidence per Hebrews 11:1 or faith as confidence) is reliable in itself without more qualifications to verify and falsify the idea in terms of a possible alternative with sufficient evidence and arguments. Of course you go with the chestnut that it takes more faith to do one thing over another, as if having less faith would, by that logic, be the better thing. But...don't you value faith? If so, then the idea of it taking more faith to be an atheist would seem to suggest you have LESS faith than they do, does it not?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Well, I hope you feel better having gotten all that off your chest. Merry Christmas!

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, at least we understand each other's positions. If you believe that the universe has always been here or came into existence uncaused (the only two remaining options), that's your business. For me, that is much less reasonable than believing in God. To each their own.

I don't believe any of those things 'cause I don't know. Talking about why we hold the positions we do is sort of the whole point of this section. You don't want to talk about Kalaam anymore? How about the moral argument?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

I don't believe any of those things 'cause I don't know. Talking about why we hold the positions we do is sort of the whole point of this section. You don't want to talk about Kalaam anymore? How about the moral argument?

I apologize if I seemed overly dismissive. It's fine to say you don't know as long as you engage others in good faith. Some of the atheists/agnostics on here don't, but you have, at least with me. I appreciate that.

Since you say you don't know the answers to at least some of the questions we've been discussing, would you entertain the possibility that time didn't begin at the Big Bang, as others have (e.g. here, here, and here)?

 

[bling]

How have you determined that something cannot come from nothing?

Science seems to believe that nothing cannot exist.

Science has really been working on this, for the most part science has to redefine nothing as something. I have a copy and read “A Universe from Nothing”: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. Please read peer reviews of Krauss work to see the scientific issues with his conclusions. The problem is really with trying to determine what it was like just before the “Big Bang”.

Explanations are given with circular reasoning: The universe is here; it had a beginning and we know this because the universe is here.

The universe started from a singularity, which we will call “nothing”, since nothing cannot exist as nothing.

Why? Energy was used in the evolutionary process that created intelligence, but I would not say it came from energy.

If you want to say: “Intelligence came from space, time, energy and matter” is not an issue, but we all agree it would be much easier to create another intelligence from “space, time, energy, matter and intelligence.

This is a strawman. Intelligence did not come from energy, It came from the evolutionary process that used energy.

I am just talking about the raw materials from which intelligence came from and if the raw material included intelligence or not. Like I said there was always “something” (even if you want to redefine nothing as something), so was intelligence more likely to be part of that something then just the raw materials of energy, matter, time and space?

The process used can be evolution with intelligence or without intelligence, but what is more likely?

Evolution does provide a way for intelligence to increase with knowing all there is to know the upper limit. Super Intelligence might be reached inorganically evolving from a “computer”.

If there is an infinite amount of time with multiple universes then “Super Intelligence” has already evolved, prior to man.

When I ask: “What is more likely”, intelligence has come about, you are proof of intelligence, so what is the likelihood of earth having the first intelligent beings, because it would be infinitely more likely that intelligence came prior to earth intelligence, so that earlier intelligence would be the likely source of human intelligence.

This is all assertion. Where is your evidence to support these claims? I don't believe energy alone made intelligence. That needs to be supported by evidence.

Does it take more or less assertions to believe intelligence would come without former intelligence then with intelligence?

Why is this have to be true. There can be a god that created everything and abandoned the creation.

God defines Himself as being Love and defines Love. All humans glorify Love, so if God is different than this Love we are not glorifying the Creator of the universe, but something the Creator is not, so why create us?

You just jumped to God being totally unselfish. How did you determine that?

God defines Himself as being Love and defines Love. Jesus defines that Love in all He said and did. Total unselfishness is part of being the epitome of Love.

 

[Moral Orel]

I apologize if I seemed overly dismissive. It's fine to say you don't know as long as you engage others in good faith. Some of the atheists/agnostics on here don't, but you have, at least with me. I appreciate that.

No worries. I'm more interested in following where ever our reasoning might lead out of pure curiosity than I am about making conclusions. Note that I never said I was disproving God, just saying that if our observations about causality are supposed to be reliable, then causality happens in time.

Since you say you don't know the answers to at least some of the questions we've been discussing, would you entertain the possibility that time didn't begin at the Big Bang, as others have (e.g. here, here, and here)?

Well, all I really said was that I dunno where the universe came from, but there's lots of stuff I don't know. I'm agnostic about more than just God. And yeah, I'd entertain those possibilities. I love that folks are trying to answer those ultimate questions even though I think it's currently outside of our grasp. There's plenty of stuff we discover in the process, and speculating about "what ifs" is interesting as all get out. I personally like multiverse theory the most, but I can't say that I ascribe to it. But anything we can speculate and imagine about the origins of the universe is worth entertaining as a possibility.

 

[Moral Orel]

The universe started from a singularity, which we will call “nothing”, since nothing cannot exist as nothing.

I don't know where you're getting this from. The singularity is all of the matter/energy/spacetime scrunched up into an infinitely small point. Krauss talks about "nothing" as being empty space which isn't actually "nothing" nor "empty". You shouldn't get those two things mixed up.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

I'm more interested in following where ever our reasoning might lead out of pure curiosity than I am about making conclusions.

I'm curious about this. Did you make a conclusion about who should have won the last presidential election? Have you made conclusions about abortion, healthcare, gay rights, etc.? I don't care what your conclusions are; the point is, I bet you have reached conclusions about these things despite having incomplete information, and despite much of the relevant information being unattainable because it's classified, known only to experts, or simply unknown. Doesn't the existence, or lack thereof, of a supreme being warrant reaching a conclusion? After all, the potential consequences of being right or wrong are far weightier than with any other topic.

By the way, it turns out that your objection to the Kalam re time and causation has been addressed. You may or may not agree with this explanation, but there it is.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm curious about this. Did you make a conclusion about who should have won the last presidential election? Have you made conclusions about abortion, healthcare, gay rights, etc.? I don't care what your conclusions are; the point is, I bet you have reached conclusions about these things despite having incomplete information, and despite much of the relevant information being unattainable because it's classified, known only to experts, or simply unknown.

I make conclusions about things that I want, sure, that's not really the same thing as facts though.

Doesn't the existence, or lack thereof, of a supreme being warrant reaching a conclusion? After all, the potential consequences of being right or wrong are far weightier than with any other topic.

Whether I reach a conclusion or not is largely out of my hands.

By the way, it turns out that your objection to the Kalam re time and causation has been addressed. You may or may not agree with this explanation, but there it is.

Did you want to talk about that, or is this your way of ending that portion of our conversation?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Did you want to talk about that, or is this your way of ending that portion of our conversation?

I think we've beaten this horse to death. Thanks for the dialog.