Evidence

[Ouroboros]

Why does WLC need "arguments" to prove God? If there is a God, he/she/it proves him/her/itself without arguments.

I don't have to make an argument for the existence of my car. I just pick up the keys and drive. A God that needs arguments to prove his/her/its existence instead of obvious, self-evident, and self-explanatory evidence, is only a construct of the argumentative mind.

Seems like too many philosophers have grown too attached to the word-play instead of obvious evidence.

 

[cottage]

Why does WLC need "arguments" to prove God? If there is a God, he/she/it proves him/her/itself without arguments.

I don't have to make an argument for the existence of my car. I just pick up the keys and drive. A God that needs arguments to prove his/her/its existence instead of obvious, self-evident, and self-explanatory evidence, is only a construct of the argumentative mind.

Seems like too many philosophers have grown too attached to the word-play instead of obvious evidence.

Good point!

I think it is because if others can be convinced then the individual confirms for himself what he wants to believe as true. It is necessary to do that because religious faith is never immune to doubt. Faith is something that has to be worked at.

It would seem that people’s faith is either instilled in them at an early age because of their parents’ beliefs or because of an institution or education system that influenced them in their formative years, which then often stays with them for the rest of their lives. Initially it is just a notion because I don't think the child always takes on board the entirety of what is taught, but in adulthood it may build other pieces into the notion so that it conforms to a particular belief system or doctrine.

Sometimes people find religious faith after trauma or an upset that occurs later in life. It is certainly true that many grow up within a religious community and readily absorb the views and teaching of their elders, but it is also the case that others in a similar situation appear entirely immune to any influence and may even challenge it, and so there is no law-like prescription to be read into this. However, I reject the notion that we choose to believe in God. In my view it is a disposition or an emotional attachment that is apparent in some people, not necessarily a specific religious belief or an innate idea of God but possibly a genetic or inherited inclination that makes them suggestible to faith systems, which are reinforced by the family and or peer groups during the formative years. And the reason I say this is that generally, although again perhaps not exclusively, it can be argued that people do not come to their religious beliefs through reason alone. If a previous unbeliever were to study logic, philosophy and cosmology, come to the conclusion that God exists, and then turn to the Bible or some other creed, affirming that the narrative tallies with the conclusion, that to me would still suggest an inclination to religious belief. The concept of a necessarily existing entity, which gave the universe its form and being, doesn’t contain within it any self-evident attributes other than the power to create and sustain universes by virtue of its definition. And that is a purely metaphysical concept and not a theological one. The readiness to adorn this simple metaphysical concept of Supreme Being with other, supposed attributes is specious and confirms the theological preconception as a prior inclination or disposition.

Belief as faith, even in the most devout, is never immune to doubt. The disposition to believe is fairly constant but the force and strength within it waxes and wanes, which is why I say religious faith has to be constantly worked at and explored. There are even websites which instruct the believer in how to counter atheist objections! It seems to me that in these cases the apologists are not arguing for God (who if he exists, exists independent of belief) but defending their commitment to a doctrine. It is as though it isn’t enough to reasonably suppose the existence of a Creator Being. Instead the deity, in the Bible for example, has a narrative built around it comprising a long-past relationship with mankind and witnessed and recorded for posterity by a chosen/fortunate few.

 

[idav]

Good point!

I think it is because if others can be convinced then the individual confirms for himself what he wants to believe as true. It is necessary to do that because religious faith is never immune to doubt. Faith is something that has to be worked at.

It would seem that people’s faith is either instilled in them at an early age because of their parents’ beliefs or because of an institution or education system that influenced them in their formative years, which then often stays with them for the rest of their lives. Initially it is just a notion because I don't think the child always takes on board the entirety of what is taught, but in adulthood it may build other pieces into the notion so that it conforms to a particular belief system or doctrine.

Sometimes people find religious faith after trauma or an upset that occurs later in life. It is certainly true that many grow up within a religious community and readily absorb the views and teaching of their elders, but it is also the case that others in a similar situation appear entirely immune to any influence and may even challenge it, and so there is no law-like prescription to be read into this. However, I reject the notion that we choose to believe in God. In my view it is a disposition or an emotional attachment that is apparent in some people, not necessarily a specific religious belief or an innate idea of God but possibly a genetic or inherited inclination that makes them suggestible to faith systems, which are reinforced by the family and or peer groups during the formative years. And the reason I say this is that generally, although again perhaps not exclusively, it can be argued that people do not come to their religious beliefs through reason alone. If a previous unbeliever were to study logic, philosophy and cosmology, come to the conclusion that God exists, and then turn to the Bible or some other creed, affirming that the narrative tallies with the conclusion, that to me would still suggest an inclination to religious belief. The concept of a necessarily existing entity, which gave the universe its form and being, doesn’t contain within it any self-evident attributes other than the power to create and sustain universes by virtue of its definition. And that is a purely metaphysical concept and not a theological one. The readiness to adorn this simple metaphysical concept of Supreme Being with other, supposed attributes is specious and confirms the theological preconception as a prior inclination or disposition.

Belief as faith, even in the most devout, is never immune to doubt. The disposition to believe is fairly constant but the force and strength within it waxes and wanes, which is why I say religious faith has to be constantly worked at and explored. There are even websites which instruct the believer in how to counter atheist objections! It seems to me that in these cases the apologists are not arguing for God (who if he exists, exists independent of belief) but defending their commitment to a doctrine. It is as though it isn’t enough to reasonably suppose the existence of a Creator Being. Instead the deity, in the Bible for example, has a narrative built around it comprising a long-past relationship with mankind and witnessed and recorded for posterity by a chosen/fortunate few.

Nice post. I think we are born without too much doubt, kids tend to believe and soak up the unbelievable. Doubt comes harder as we get older and jaded. Some may have more of an inclination to be optimistic hopeful or faithful but whether to even put trust in some optimistic view, beyond what we see, is a choice. Others may be more inclined to doubt in which case more evidence is necessary in order to put trust in something. Whether a choice is made with lots of knowledge or even if the chance is 50 50 there is still a choice made for the knowledge we arent 100 percent on.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

. And we can watch a colony composed of these mindless, brainless ants to things most mammals can't. Because the property of this "mind" is only a property of the whole. And when you can explain how that happens, and how it doesn't resemble an emergent human mind, then you can dismiss the analogy.

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

We have shown that much of this is wrong. If you damage "matter" in the brain memories can disappear, personalities can change, the ability to form new memories can be erased. All because of changes to matter.

Just because we can show that the brain can cause a change in mental states does not mean that the mind and the brain are the same thing. That is just a correlation. And a correlation is not an explanation.

Let's assume that this is true. Let's further assume the universe "began" to exist at one point. And finally, let's assume that whatever we'd call the kind of reality that existed when the universe had not begun was a reality without time. Since there can be no change without time, any such reality can't ever change. Whatever reality that existed such that the universe "began to exist" was a reality in which change was impossible. So the universe cannot have begun to exist, as that is a change, and there can be no changes in this "no universe" reality.

“…in which change was impossible”. That is your assertion, not mines. Change was possible, it just hadn’t occurred until the creation event.

There's decades of experiments showing you are wrong. You don't know about them, of course, but just because you can access simplified versions of various theological proofs doesn't mean you understand what you are saying.

Show that I’m wrong.

Then the universe never existed.

Unsupported conclusion.

Why?

See previous 1,200 posts.

Why? You repeat what you've read over and over again, but all you can muster to defend your statements is "that's absurd" or simply repeating yourself.

I also repeated the same analogies that support my assertions about a dozen times or more.

First there's the problem with your treatment of science research:

Or elsewhere state "The validity of the BGV theorem is not in question, but its interpretation has generated some controversy" (source)? Why does Guth (the G in BGV) state there while there is a boundary in the "is of course no conclusion" even if we accept the BGV "inflating model" that it "must have a unique beginning"? And finally, why do we find studies like "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal"? Possibly, because this is how you treat science research:
I devoted a whole page (and more) to the ways you mischaracterized Penrose, the big bang, and "science" here and again here. You still persisted in your inaccurate descriptions of cosmology and physics and in the process you dismissed someone who actually is in this field here.

Well, I already gave Penrose quotes when he gave the probability of a life-permitting universe giving rise to human life. My treatment of cosmology and physics has been completely in line with modern cosmology. So what you are talking about, I don’t know.

Then there are the ways that do not have to do with physics:
Among other ways:
1) A first cause argument that assumes both that the universe was this first cause and that there cannot be uncaused things that began a causal chain (or began causation)

The universe is contingent and can not be used as a “first cause” explanation, Legion. I don’t understand how you try to come across as this big shot intellectual, yet you are making statements like the above quote.

2) Your idea of causation is outdated and incorrect. I have given you multiple links to freely accessible versions of published studies that demonstrate your assumptions about causality have been empirically invalidated for decades.

Spare me the links.

Prove it.

If you are building a house that will take an infinite amount of steps to complete, will you ever complete the project? Yes or no.

The point is the argument assumes God exists. It's just like this: "If God exists, then God is all-powerful". How might this be refuted?

Because this is one of the attributes that a MGB would have.

Simply by saying God doesn't exist.

No because saying “God doesn’t exist” is making a claim of knowledge, which requires evidence. Mr. Intellectual, you should know this. All I have to do is ask “How do you know that God doesn’t exist”, then what will you say? This is what happens when you make absolute statements with no evidence.

Every conditional is an assumption. "If a MGB exists..." can be refuted easily: a MGB doesn't exist.

Those are two totally different statements. One deals with possibilities, and the other deals with absoluteness. To say a MGB doesn’t exist means that you have to know everything about everything, which you don’t, so to make the claim is just a baseless and unsupported assertion.

You've only talked about what would follow if certain things are true, but that doesn't make them true.

I am talking about things that are possibility necessarily true. If it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then it must be true. This is just based on the nature of necessity, and if you ask any philosopher he/she will tell you the same thing.

You cannot demonstrate the incoherency based on the concept of a MGB. And if such a concept does not violate logic, then it must be true in some possible world, and if it is true in some possible world, then it is true in all possible worlds including our own.

Let's say that person in Japan says that if you don't exist, she'll buy a car. You do exist, so she doesn't. If x, then y, means assuming x is true, then y is true.

Contingency

I gave you that in the post you are quoting from. You ignored it. Again.

I don’t recall.

You are wrong. You have challenged others to open textbooks but have offered none and when presented with what actual cosmologists say in things you've never read, you claim the statement is hyperbole. On what basis?

No, YOU are wrong. Very wrong. Since it was discovered that the universe began to exist, scientists have been going head strong to come up with a naturalistic model that would explain its origins. Where do you think the Steady State Model and the Oscillating Model came from?? They came from efforts to naturally explain the beginning of our universe. If our universe was eternal there would be no need for other theories, but it isn’t, so there is. So you are just completely wrong here. The finitude of the universe is an absolute FACT in cosmology, Legion. To deny this is to deny science.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why does WLC need "arguments" to prove God?

For the same reason non-believers ask for evidence of God

If there is a God, he/she/it proves him/her/itself without arguments.

Not necessarily true.

I don't have to make an argument for the existence of my car.

What if someone doesn't believe you have a car?

I just pick up the keys and drive. A God that needs arguments to prove his/her/its existence instead of obvious, self-evident, and self-explanatory evidence, is only a construct of the argumentative mind.

Unsupported claim

Seems like too many philosophers have grown too attached to the word-play instead of obvious evidence.

Your opinion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why does WLC need "arguments" to prove God? If there is a God, he/she/it proves him/her/itself without arguments.

Self-esteem. WLC's exercises in futility are certainly an exemplar of Bradley's description of metaphysics- the "finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."

Faith comes first- the arguments are found later on (if at all) and on an ad hoc basis. This is why all the arguments for the existence of God are so, so BAD.

 

[Thief]

Why are you having such a difficult time spitting out what you're trying to say here? Or are you being mysterious on purpose?

So you are hinting at (rather than, you know, actually presenting) something like the causal argument for the existence of God? (You know, the one that has been recognized as invalid for... well, centuries...)

EVEN IF one is inclined to accept the (non-existent) argument against an infinite regression of cause and effect (which would obviously remove the need to "make a choice", since the sequence of cause and effect would just go back indefinitely)- there is no reason to posit any nonsensical "spirit" as the initial cause- and worse, there is no reason to suppose that these causal sequences must all have originated in one initial cause (of course, this is the intended conclusion, for which the entire argument is measured); this simply does not follow.

The causal argument, at best, leads to the conclusion that there was at least one "uncaused causes" to get the whole sequence of cause and effect started- and no more. (Nor does it follow that this/these uncaused cause(s) must still exist- it/they could have long since been destroyed or become deceased...)

Clearly, this is miles away from the desired conclusion that anything remotely resembling any god, much less the Christian one, ever existed.

I'm not Christian....though the Carpenter is my Inspiration.

As for choosing between the universe(one word) having a spiritual cause or not....
why are you trying to be so difficult about it?

Substance as self starting?.....and then all of spirit is chemically bound and terminal.
Spirit first... and there is hope of life after the last breath.

What's so hard about that?

 

[cottage]

For the same reason non-believers ask for evidence of God

Not quite the same though, is it?

The sceptic asks for evidence because of an assertion. Had the assertion not been made then of course there would be no demand for evidence.

Not necessarily true.

The poster made a valid point. We are being asked to believe that there is an all sufficient, Almighty God, the creator and conserver of every conceivable thing whose non-existence is said to be impossible. If that were the case its existence would be self-evident and impossible to deny and unbelief would be the equal of conceiving twice four to be seven. And yet there are millions of unbelievers in the world while the believers themselves have to resort to arcane arguments or make inferences from the material world.

I think what is most damning is that one can imagine a being who is all the things that your God is not, ie self-evident and undeniably ever-present, non-faith dependent, non-worshipful, benevolent, charitable and merciful. Now since that God self-evidently doesn't exist and your conception is wholly inferior, it must follow that there can be no Almighty God period.









Your opinion.[/QUOTE]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

You evaluate arguments and counter-arguments without out knowing what they mean or thinking do when you don't. How on earth am I supposed to show you something that demonstrates your consciousness argument is wrong if you can't understand what I am showing you?

“…in which change was impossible”. That is your assertion, not mines. Change was possible, it just hadn’t occurred until the creation event.

Let me repeat, THERE CAN BE NO CHANGE WITHOUT TIME.

If there can be no change without time, then the creation of the universe didn't change anything.


A proof:
1) If something really exists it must exist in some reality |A
2) God existed when the universe did not |P
3) God created the universe | P
4) Time did not exist until the universe did. |P
5) Without time, change is impossible |P
6) There was a reality that existed without time which changed by the creation of the universe (the universe was not, and then was; ergo change) | from 3, P & 1, MP

Conclusion: The universe doesn't exist | from 5 & 6 via contradiction

Show that I’m wrong.

I did. I showed your entire causal model is hopelessly flawed by empirical studies. Even for biological systems, to borrow a section header from Bellac's paper from Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology vol. 110, "Time’s arrow is blurred in small (e.g. biological) systems".

I gave sources so that you need not trust me:

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping

Extreme nonlocality with one photon

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

NMR implementation of a quantum delayed-choice experiment

A Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment

I already gave Penrose quotes when he gave the probability of a life-permitting universe giving rise to human life.

In The Road to Reality he states (p. 758) that "We do not have much idea, for example, what conditions are actually necessary for the production of sentient life."

and (emphases added): "It seems to me that with a spatially infinite and essentially uniform universe (e.g., K ≤ 0, in the standard models) the strong anthropic principle is almost useless for tuning physical parameters, beyond demanding that the physical laws be such that sentience is possible (which is, itself fairly unusable, since we do not know the prerequisites for sentience). For if sentient life is possile at all, then we expect that, in a spatially infinite universe, it will occur. This will happen even if the conditions for sentience are extraordinarily unlikely to come about in any given finite region of the universe." (p. 760).

My treatment of cosmology and physics has been completely in line with modern cosmology.

Right.

The standard model doesn’t use “actual” infinity.

The standard model does:

From sect. 2.3 Standard Cosmology of this book: "Exactly at the time of the Big Bang some fourteen billion years ago, it is reckoned, all the matter and energy of the Universe was concentrated at a single point, where the density and curvature would be infinite."
From a less technical book: "Tracing the evolution predicted by the standard model backward in time even beyond the Planck radius, the Universe necessarily reaches a singular stage where the temperature becomes infinite, the curvature radius c/H is then zero, and its reciprocal (the curvature) therefore becomes infinite"

You said it was hyperbole. You gave no references. You cited nothing. You did not give anything other than just claim it was hyperbole. This IS the Standard Model you've defended for so long. However, as you don't read cosmology research or literature you didn't know it involves infinities.

The universe is contingent and can not be used as a “first cause” explanation

I'm not using it as one.

Spare me the links.

You ask me to show you that empirical studies demonstrate you're wrong, but you won't look at those studies and if I summarize the findings you just call it absurd.

If you are building a house that will take an infinite amount of steps to complete

I asked for a proof. If I want to prove that when you add any two numbers, you get a positive number, I can literally give you an infinite number of examples that show this. It only takes one example to show it is false. If you wish to prove that any infinite regress whatsoever is impossible, then you need to prove it for all of them. Using your method (giving an example) I can prove that addition always gives us 4 using more examples then you do above:
3+1 = 4
2+2 = 4
etc.

I don’t recall.

1. God, by definition, is a MBG that exists necessarily. | P (for premise) or A (for assumption) ?
Comment:
Let X by any event or entity (including a MGB). If X exists necessarily, then X exists in all possible worlds. That means X exists in our world. So step one asserts that God exists in this world. Why? Which system are you using?

2. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world. | A (or it is redundant but follows from 1 )
Comment:
The statement isn't derived as is, and although it could follow from 1 it would just be redundant, as 1 already accepts as given that God exists in our world. EVEN with a better first step, this statement is still internally redundant, as being possible means that it exists/happens in some possible world

3. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some world, it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world. | ?Tautology

Comment:
If a MGB exists in some possible world, that again means it is possible for a MGB to exist in this world.

4. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being must exist in this world. | ?

Comment:
This is false. There are only certain systems in which this is valid, but such systems require things not in your proof.

No because saying “God doesn’t exist” is making a claim of knowledge, which requires evidence. Mr. Intellectual, you should know this.

It requires no knowledge because you use a conditional:
The point is the argument assumes God exists: If God exists, then God is all-powerful". How might this be refuted? Simply by saying God doesn't exist. Every conditional is an assumption.

When you can explain how one conditional does not entail contingency, but the example of "if x the y" with the Japanese woman does, then we can start dealing with what the terms you use really mean.

I am talking about things that are possibility necessarily true.

You are talking about things you don't understand, namely this: X→□◊X or this ◊(∃x)□[(E!x ⊃ Px) & E!x] or a number of other systems that deal with things like necessarily possible or possibly necessary. They all have different ways of showing how to get from possible to necessary through rules that are valid. Your "proof" starts by stating God exists in this world and ends with saying that anything which is possible it true. But, as you don't know any logic system, you don't know what it is you are doing.

 

[cottage]

Self-esteem. WLC's exercises in futility are certainly an exemplar of Bradley's description of metaphysics- the "finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."

Faith comes first- the arguments are found later on (if at all) and on an ad hoc basis. This is why all the arguments for the existence of God are so, so BAD.

It is faith first. What was it Bertrand Russell said (of Aquinas)? Not a proper intellectual inquiry, but 'the finding for an argument from a conclusion given in advance.'

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As for choosing between the universe(one word) having a spiritual cause or not....
why are you trying to be so difficult about it?

"Difficult"? Your question has an unwarranted premise, namely that the universe, as a whole, has a cause of any kind at all...

Substance as self starting?.....and then all of spirit is chemically bound and terminal.
Spirit first... and there is hope of life after the last breath.

What's so hard about that?

Well, the fact that it's nonsense for one, with no explanatory value for two, and the fact that its non-sequitur unless we grant the aforementioned unwarranted premise... You mean beyond that?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is faith first. What was it Bertrand Russell said (of Aquinas)? Not a proper intellectual inquiry, but 'the finding for an argument from a conclusion given in advance.'

Exactly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

‘God exists’ is NOT a necessary truth (please excuse the shouted capitals).

Yes it is. All possible necessary truths are in fact actual necessary truths.

Necessary truths are analyzed in terms of logical demonstration, and the concepts to which they refer do not become actualized objects due to the relation of terms in a proposition. And the propositions themselves, whether spoken or written, simply articulate what is thought and it is by that very same means that the conclusion in this case can be denied without encountering any absurdity. A necessary truth is universal and certain in as much that the proposition and its counterpart cannot be held in the mind at the same time. No person can conceive of 2 + 2 as being the equal of 3, or a two-sided triangle, or A not being A, all of which are universally and demonstrably true. If ‘God exists’ were a necessary truth it would be impossible to deny his existence as it would be to deny the foregoing, and yet every person including those of faith can conceive of God not existing. There is no being that cannot be thought not to exist. There is therefore no necessarily existent God.

I can see where you are coming from, no doubt. But still, just because you can conceive of a God not existing does NOT (not shouting, just placing emphasis) mean that if God did exist his existence wouldn’t be necessarily true. The fact still remains, that all possible necessary truths must be true. Once that fact stops being true, you would have a case. But since that is the nature of necessity, I don’t see why you aren’t accepting it.

To infer the existence of God from a phenomenon we understand as cause and effect, which is a feature of the known world, is to identify a specific empirical fact and then apply it as a general principle together with the conclusion that other worlds (God) must be as this one. But the phenomenon of causation is a feature of the physical world and it cannot be both necessary and contingent.

Who said it was? I agree, it is either or.

This demonstrates the problem of inferring the existence of other worlds (to include gods) by expecting to apply phenomena from the actual world. But if the same causal phenomena are necessary for the omnipotent being’s work then the omnipotent being cannot work without them!

I don’t follow…

And so the absurdity we arrive at is that the Being’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent: it cannot be the former without the latter, and yet the latter (thedenial of which invites no contradiction) means that it cannot be the former!

Hey cot, you are speaking wayyy to technical for me. Break it down for me lol.

As for an infinite regress, whether or not such a thing is possible (Bertrand Russell said of the assertion that every series must have a first term: ‘This is false. The series of proper fractions has no first term.&#8217, we know it isn’t logically necessary; for there is no demonstration that one thing is a cause of another and therefore since there can be no necessary first cause there can be no necessary infinite regression.

A first cause is necessary. Either there was a necessary first cause or a necessary infinite regression. Can’t be both.

Leibniz said that even if the world has always existed there must be a sufficient reason to explain its contingent existence.

If something always existed, it always existed necessarily. There can’t be “something” to explain the existence of another thing that has always existed.

(There is an explanation for everything, The Principle of Sufficient Reason, which says for every positive fact there is some reason, explanation or cause for why it is such and not otherwise.)

Right.

The key words here were ‘living in the third century’ when superstition was rife and the term magic meant something rather more sinister than the way it is used today. So I fail to understand the point of your analogy. Ignorance is surely not a virtue!

Well, I don’t think that is a sufficient response because even if you did live in the third century and didn’t subscribe to the latest superstition of the day, I don’t think you would see the object (I forgot what it was) and not suspect intelligent design.

A God who ‘thinks and learns’? In short, No! Clearly in the case of an omniscient and omnipotent being there is no learning from experience, no gaining of knowledge, no problem solving, no reflection or meditation, and no coping with adverse situations. And nor can there be a cognitive ability to reason, plan and form ideas, for by its very definition the concept of Supreme Being doesn’t reason: it is reason. So if this thinking and learning God responds in an anthropomorphic fashion then that contradicts the concept of all sufficient, necessary being.

Wait a minute, so if you are an omniscient being and you know at the beginning of the 2014 NBA season which team will win the championship, do you know THAT they won? Or do you know that they WILL win? Isn’t there a difference between what you know will happen and what you know actually happened?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And this sufficient reason he said will be God, an intelligent being that freely chose to bring the world into existence. But there is another way to look at that principle of sufficient reason. It may be argued that neither God nor the world existing from eternity need a reason for being, since there will be nothing external to them, and the contingency of the world isn’t explained by God since his non-existence can be conceived just as easily as any contingent thing, and if there is some unknowable and mysterious element that shrouds God’s elusive necessity from minds, then that that same argument may apply to the world itself, but if the world is created then there must be a reason and a purpose for its being brought into being. So what is it? According to the principle of sufficient reason nothing happens by chance and a thing that doesn’t have to exist but does exist needs a reason for its existence. But Leibniz (and William Lane Craig) takes that basic principle much further, which demands a different answer; for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent being freely chose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation. And there can only be two answers to that question. God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities appear incoherent. For it seems obvious that an omnipotent Supreme Being, who is sufficient in all things, cannot have needs, unfulfilled wishes or desires. He has everything and is everything by definition. And nor can it be said that he created the world for the benefits of others, since it is nonsensical to imply that creatures that didn’t formerly exist can benefit from anything.

I wanted to respond to this separately. So what it boils down to is this; Regardless of how anyone looks at it, we only have to options. You see, regardless of whether you are a theists, atheist, whatever, there are only two options.

Here is what we know. We know that we exist. We also know that the universe exists. Now, either the universe (that is all physical reality, anywhere) is eternal and never began to exist, or there was a supernatural creator that created the universe, and this supernatural creator is eternal and never began to exist. So either way, something is eternal, whether it is the universe, or the creator that created the universe. But either way, something is eternal. There is a “something” out there that is eternal. So whether you are a theist or naturalist, you believe in the concept of eternity.

Now, due to the fact that both options are competing views, both can’t be true. Both options can’t be eternal. So if one is negated, then the other one is true by default. Since I am a Christian theist, and I believe my position is true, how can I debunk the opposing view? What evidence is there for a finite universe?

Evidence against a finite universe:

1. Infinity problem
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics
3. Entropy problem
4. BGV theorem
5. Observational evidence (expanding universe)
6. Contingency problem

There are at least SIX (that I can think of) problems that are plaguing the theory of a finite universe, and EACH of these problems are independent of the other. So if you successfully know refute on problem, you still have to deal with the others. But I don’t think you can successfully refute even one, and if you think you can, go for it. In fact, the infinity problem is a logical problem and I think that is the more tougher problem than the rest, but all are equally difficult for the naturalist to deal with.


Now, on the other hand, we have the God Hypothesis.

Evidence against a supernatural creator??? I can’t think of one. Maybe the problem of evil, and I don’t even think that is a strong one. Based on the evidence against a finite universe, I don’t see how theism isn’t the more plausible explanation. Just merely thinking about it, I mean heck, if those problems indicate a finite universe, then whatever gave the universe its beginning could not itself be made up of matter and space. God just so HAPPENS to have always been defined as immaterial, by people that didn’t have a clue about cosmology or physics. An immaterial entity omnipotent entity is what is needed to create a universe, and God has always been defined as such. Theists have always believed the universe began to exist when science was telling everyone that the universe was eternal, yet, science has confirmed what the theists have been claiming all along.

But yeah, your position is plagued with problems my man.

 

[Thief]

"Difficult"? Your question has an unwarranted premise, namely that the universe, as a whole, has a cause of any kind at all...



Well, the fact that it's nonsense for one, with no explanatory value for two, and the fact that its non-sequitur unless we grant the aforementioned unwarranted premise... You mean beyond that?

That would be incorrect.
Science relies on cause and effect for the sake of experiment.
If you cannot associate the effect to a cause .....then you don't know.

I say the universe (one word) is the effect.....God is the cause.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That would be incorrect.
Science relies on cause and effect for the sake of experiment.

The sciences rely on logic, observation, and a theoretical framework. Young did an experiment which showed that the cause of the interference pattern he observed was explained by positing light was a wave. Einstein did an experiment in which he showed the photoelectric effect was caused by positing light was composed of "particles" (discrete units we now call photons). But it was logic, not experiment and DEFINITELY not the theoretical framework that settled the problem Both experiments were fine. Each conclusion, by itself, was perfectly consistent with the observation and theoretical framework.

However, logical deduction made it clear that both experimental conclusions could not exist within this framework. As a result, the entire framework was modified because all three: logic, observation, and framework, are required. Not cause and effect.

If you cannot associate the effect to a cause .....then you don't know.

That's assuming that out understanding of causality hasn't changed in ~2,500 years. It has.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes it is. All possible necessary truths are in fact actual necessary truths.

Nonsense. That God exists is clearly NOT a necessary truth, since the negation, that God does not exist, is not a contradiction.

This is such a tired, dried up old canard, which has been refuted so many times, its really sad to see lame *** apologetics carrying on regardless. It'd be like if there was some faction which still held to heliocentric models.

All existence is contingent. Including God's. The ontological argument is invalid, and the modal argument is no better.

I
Here is what we know. We know that we exist. We also know that the universe exists. Now, either the universe (that is all physical reality, anywhere) is eternal and never began to exist, or there was a supernatural creator that created the universe, and this supernatural creator is eternal and never began to exist.

Or, the obvious third option you neglected to mention, that the universe began to exist as the result of some natural (i.e. not occult or supernatural) cause.

Oops, eh?

Evidence against a finite universe:

1. Infinity problem

What does that mean? What "problem"? Are you referring to the nonsensical and inconclusive intuition pumps favored by Craig? Or the fallacious argument against an infinite regress favored by Thomas?

The fact remains that an infinite regress can't be ruled out, and so the causal argument for the existence of God is shipwrecked.

2.

2nd law of thermodynamics
3. Entropy problem
4. BGV theorem
5. Observational evidence (expanding universe)
6. Contingency problem

You haven't said why any of these are "problems" in the relevant sense. And I suspect you're just thinking of the popular misconception of the BBT, i.e. that it proves the universe had a beginning; it does no such thing. The BBT is consistent with an eternally existing universe.

Evidence against a supernatural creator??? I can’t think of one. Maybe the problem of evil, and I don’t even think that is a strong one.

It's a strong and fatal problem for anyone committed to holding onto the three omni attributes. It's not a problem for a minimally defined theistic creator, i.e. deism, because the creator needn't be omni anything, just very powerful and so on.

But the lack of evidence for intelligent design is strong evidence against a supernatural creator; i.e. the imperfections of biological structures, waste in the natural order, the absence of any moral world order, and so on.

The absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence.

Based on the evidence against a finite universe, I don’t see how theism isn’t the more plausible explanation.

I think you meant to say "evidence against an infinite universe", but no matter because you haven't given any. Moreover, theism is not an explanation at all- it simply stipulates a cause proportionate to the effect. But anyone can do that.

If "God did it" is a viable hypothesis, then so is "Gandalf did it".

If we have to choose between nonsensical supernatural pseudo-explanations that have no evidentiary support, I'm going with Gandalf.

But yeah, your position is plagued with problems my man.

LOL... my irony meter just broke...

"You're black" says the crow to the raven.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That would be incorrect.
Science relies on cause and effect for the sake of experiment.
If you cannot associate the effect to a cause .....then you don't know.

Whatever that means.

I say the universe (one word) is the effect.....God is the cause.

Right, and that's all that you've done; you've stipulated that the universe is an effect- well, if we accept that (which there is no reason to do), then obviously we have to say what the cause is.

But that the universe is, as a whole, an effect, is not only an unwarranted assumption, it is a fallacy of composition, and cannot be jusified by any science.

 

[Thief]

The sciences rely on logic, observation, and a theoretical framework. Young did an experiment which showed that the cause of the interference pattern he observed was explained by positing light was a wave. Einstein did an experiment in which he showed the photoelectric effect was caused by positing light was composed of "particles" (discrete units we now call photons). But it was logic, not experiment and DEFINITELY not the theoretical framework that settled the problem Both experiments were fine. Each conclusion, by itself, was perfectly consistent with the observation and theoretical framework.

However, logical deduction made it clear that both experimental conclusions could not exist within this framework. As a result, the entire framework was modified because all three: logic, observation, and framework, are required. Not cause and effect.

That would be incorrect.

All experimentation relies on the certainty of the pending result.
Setting the experiment into motion is important...of course.
But if the result is not as you said it would be......fail.
You cannot separate cause and effect.

Einstein btw had some doubts about his famous equation.
He shelved it for years.
When presented the proving relied upon an observation of exacting detail made during an eclipse.

He was as nervous as everyone else.
If the predicted measure could not be found.....too bad.

Logic did you say?....yes of course.

An object at rest will remain at rest until..... Something...... moves it.
The singularity was always in motion?......think about it.

Cause and effect.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That would be incorrect.

All experimentation relies on the certainty of the pending result.

An entire branch of sciences relies on the fact that there is no certainty of the pending result. It is axiomatic in quantum physics: experiments are probabilistic and nobody knows the cause. What causes nonlocal correlations? Faster than light travel that can't be used to send signals? Causation that doesn't require time, and therefore there is no difference between cause and effect?

And even when experiments do end up with a particular result, often enough the choice of "cause" is arbitrary. The classic example is metabolic-repair within a cell. What causes it? The parts of the cell. What causes them to do particular things? The metabolic-repair process. Complex systems exhibit circular causality which, in the weak sense, means that the scientists building a model, running an experiment, etc., can choose something arbitrarily to be the cause of some effect(s), or vice versa.

Setting the experiment into motion is important...of course.
But if the result is not as you said it would be......fail.

Nothing about that holds true. There are many experiments which have no hypotheses. Exploratory experiments of this type have no "result" that they are predicting, they want to see what happens. The "effect" or "effects" are important no matter what they are.

You cannot separate cause and effect.

Much of the time, you don't need to. That's the point of models. You can make certain parameters dependent on others, or the other way around. Either way, you can still check the model against the system.

Einstein btw had some doubts about his famous equation.
He shelved it for years.

If you mean the equivalence relation e=mc^2, it was one of his first publications.

When presented the proving relied upon an observation of exacting detail made during an eclipse.

Then you're talking about general relativity, which he didn't ever shelve, but worked on tirelessly from having first formulated his special relativity and then published in 1915. The eclipse was four years later.

An object at rest will remain at rest until

...we realize that classical physics isn't accurate and that these 17th century equations of motion were outdated even before quantum physics.