Proving God exists round 2

[pr126]

If the universe needed a god to be created [from nothing] then who created god?
Theist say - Well, god has always existed. So what is this entity that can exist outside the universe, time. matter, reality?
And if this entity is outside our reality, how can we perceive it?
How do we KNOW that something we can not see, perceive, interact with - does actually exist?

How did this entity outside our reality acquired anthropomorphic attributes?
How did this entity outside our reality acquired human emotions such as anger, jealousy, revenge?
How come that this entity outside our reality has needs that we must provide for?

[peterpin]

The existence of God is a matter of faith, yes.

What is more,pretty much anything anyone says about God is inadequate, because God transcends the universe. By definition, he cannot be explained of captured.

What people believe is in the end a matter for each individual to decide.

Personally I only get irritated when others tell me what I must believe and do, or when others say they must interfer with my freedom because of THEIR beliefs.

Believing things generally is not irrational though....

When you get married you BELIEVE that you wife will be a good life partner, will not cheat on you, will be a good mother to your children. You don't KNOW that. But you have some EVIDENCE for your belief, however tentative: you have got to know your fiancee over time, and you have decided you will take the risk and get married because you BELIEVE if will work out well.

In fact, we could not function properly if we abandoned ALL kind of belief.

It is in THAT connnexion I see a belief in God. It is a personal decision,and it good to review it regularly. It is also entirely reasonable to reject a belief in God. As I said, in short,it a matter of belief.

And belief is not a dirty word.

[pr126]

Religion can never be a "personal matter" between the believer and his god.
Religion is a meme which MUST spread, passed on, inculcated.
How else is it sustainable for thousands of years?

Some religions have to use extreme violence and coercion in addition to inculcation (brainwashing) to be sustainable.
That is built into the The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

[peterpin]

Well there are those who feel the need to be part of a religious group, and spread their own beliefs. If it is peaceful they have a right to do this, but as an individual I have an absolute right to take it or leave it.

In that sense religion is a personal matter,and you will not find any two people who believe exactly the same thing.

"ESTABLISHED" religion can and usually does become a racket for someone.

The annoying part is, when someone says he has "proved" the existence of God, it is usually followed very quickly by a demand of some kind, like,in your case, sit in the corner with a dunce's hat, or convert to this or that faith, or something similar.

And, as you say, there are those religions that decide to use violence to enforce compliance. That is why I find Islam utterly repulsive.

I should have been more precice: TO ME my beliefs are personal, and I will not pass them on to others because I may be wrong, and I don't want to be responsible for other people making bad decisions. My beliefs change over time, as I frequently re-evaluate. In other words,I will not buy a ready-made belief system off the shelf, nor will I pass what I believe on to others. Everybody has to decide for themselves.

As to Equestrian,well, let's see if he wants to tell people why he is here...

[sum]

Hello Equestrian

Your quote -
Now it's difficult to see how there can be any explanation of this fact apart from theism

Perhaps you do find it difficult but I don`t.

Your quote -
Perhaps you can succeed where pr126 has failed, sum. What arguments or evidence can you offer for atheism?

I do not intend to be drawn into a debate which will convince no-one even if it lasted for weeks.

Your quote -
It should be obvious that I am in no way basing my argument on the assumption that everything is known.

The obvious response to this is that you might be a tad premature in supposing theism is the answer when all the facts are not yet known.

Your quote -
I have utilized the discoveries of modern cosmology to provide evidence for God in the form of inference to the best explanation for the origin of the universe, just as one would use the discoveries of biology to provide evidence for evolution.

As pr126 has said, the same arguments about the origin of god also apply. Why should the origin of the universe be a different matter to the origin of god? I find it very hard to believe that a god has always existed and without any creation of said god who then was alone and bored in the middle of nothingness for heaven knows how long before he thought about creating the universe.

Before you think that theism answers your questions you must wait for more info regarding the singularity and what it consisted of and how it appeared.

Your quote -
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

This might well apply with the knowledge that science has at present but does not rule out further facts appearing in the future which could well explain the pre-singularity period of time. I have no problem with early societies believing in a flat earth - it must have seemed reasonable at the time - but later details about the earth appeared and so societies had to revise their understanding. Perhaps we are at that stage with regard to the singularity and pre-singularity periods.

I can understand your belief in a god whether it stems from the facts about the universe that are known at present or even an inner need to believe in a god and so use what is only understood at present to support your need for a god. It does not matter to me.

sum

[pr126]

[peterpin]

I liked that!
It fits here really well.

Did you do it?

[pr126]

Did you do it?

No, found it on the web.

[Equestrian]

Hello peterpin,

Before I address your objection, allow me a brief moment to annotate the point of contention at hand. You seem to be confused as to the subject of this debate.

Pr126 claimed (to assert as a fact) that reason and theism are irreconcilable. By this he means that the belief in God is irrational in the same way that the belief in square circles or a moon made of cheese is irrational. In response, I countered that it is atheism that is absent of reason.

So the subject of this debate is as follows:

Is there reason to believe in God or is there reason to believe in no God?


Thus far pr126 has failed to provide any reason to believe that there is no God. Were pr126 a critical thinking person, his failure to provide reason for his belief would have given him pause inlight of the following charge:

Pr126 declared that "theist do not need evidence. They do not want evidence. That would destroy faith."

If pr126 himself cannot provide evidence against the existence of God, then how exactly is the theist able to recognize the evidence the atheist is unable to provide?
Pr126 would have immediately recognized this brazen discrepancy had he not been compromised by his narrow dogma.


Although pr126 failed to provide a reason to believe in the non-existence of God, I still have the obligation (burden of proof) to provide reason to believe in the existence of God. The absence of such reason would show that both theism and atheism are beyond reason, atleast in this debate.
As such, I had provided evidence in the form of inference to the best explanation for the origin of the universe. Understand that there are many reasons that provide warrant for belief in God. I just chose one that is concise and easy to comprehend.

The theistic inference to the best explanation of the origin of the universe relies entirely on the fact that universe had a beginning. All of the evidence shows that universe is not eternal, but had a beginning a finite time ago.
The only thing science has not yet provided is a quantum theory of gravity, therefore we have no physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. The BGV Theorem proves that the vacuum state of the early universe cannot be eternal, but must have had an absolute beginning.

Even if our universe is just a small part of a multiverse composed of many universes, the BGV Theorem requires that the mutliverse itself must have a beginning. Even if the universe is oscillating (expanding and contracting), the BGV Theorem requires that it too must have had an absolute beginning.

These models and others, such as loop quantum gravity, string, and closed time-like curves, are speculative models frought with problems. But the bottom line is that none of these models, even if true, succeed in restoring an eternal universe.

So the multiverse and oscillating universe models that you had provided as alternatives do nothing to revoke the theistic inference to the best explanation of the origin of the universe. In fact, they are perfectly compatible with a theistic inference to the best explanation. What your models do not provide is an atheistic inference to the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

If you are attempting, in your argument, to replace the Big Bang Theory with these models, or even if you're making the case that these models have equal warrant to Big Bang Theory, then what you are essentially doing is rejecting the overwhelming scientific evidence for a finite universe in order to avoid the theistic inference to the best explanation. Now THAT would be a travesty, for is it not the atheist that constantly accuses the theist for rejecting the scientific evidence in favor of theism?

Honestly, peterpin. How deep in the rabbit hole are you willing to go in order to avoid the simple conclusion that belief in God is reasonable? I'm not attempting to prove God here, I'm proving that theism is a reasonable position. That's what this debate is all about. People like pr126 and sum can't even entertain the notion that theism and reason are reconcilable, it goes against every fiber of their belief.

[Equestrian]

If the universe needed a god to be created [from nothing] then who created god?
Theist say - Well, god has always existed. So what is this entity that can exist outside the universe, time. matter, reality?
And if this entity is outside our reality, how can we perceive it?
How do we KNOW that something we can not see, perceive, interact with - does actually exist?

How did this entity outside our reality acquired anthropomorphic attributes?
How did this entity outside our reality acquired human emotions such as anger, jealousy, revenge?
How come that this entity outside our reality has needs that we must provide for?

Stop procrastinating, bub. Either put up or shut up.

Provide an argument or evidence for atheism.

C'mon, this should be a simple exercise for you. Theists all over the world are running from the obvious evidence, remember?

[Equestrian]

I do not intend to be drawn into a debate which will convince no-one even if it lasted for weeks.

Too late, you've already injected yourself into this debate. Don't think you can hide behind these lousy excuses.

I have provided a reason to believe in the existence of God, now it's your turn:

What arguments or evidence can you offer for atheism?

[peterpin]

equestrian,

essentially you provided the old Duns Scotus argument,in a simpler form, and brought into a modern context. You don't need the whole universe for that, a blade of grass will do.

The BEST you can get out of that line is

there is a case to suppose a transcendental being or collective which may or may not have any interest in humans.
It is not necessary to suppose that his being is eternal,and old Duns jumps through quite some hoops for that...
Also, being the cause of something does not necessarily mean complete control,as any parent can testify.

All said and done,there may an ARGUMENT for theism,I never denied that, but like any argument, it does not provide proof. It is a case of weighing up evidence, much like a jury in a court of law would do.

If you say it could that theism is a reasonable position, it has a case, then a rejection of the evidence must be reasonable also, at it is case of JUDGEMENT, and the case is not proven beyond doubt.

[sword_of_truth]

I give you a box and tell you I know there is a fork inside it. If you ask me how I know there is a fork inside it, I just mumble some pseudo-philophical nonsense that doesn't hold any weight, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that it's unlikely that there is a fork in the box just because the idea of a fork being inside of it was an essentially random idea with no good justification. There COULD be a fork in there, but there could also be thousands of other things. Why would I think the fork is any more likely that any of the other thousands of possibilities out there?

Someone who understands cosmology would know that hand-waving arguments like "the universe began to exist" hold very, very little weight, indeed.

The great unknown is like that box, except a lot bigger, and thus, perhaps more likely to contain "forks" like "God". But I view God as a random proposition with no substantiation. There might be a God, but there might be a flying spaghetti monster, as well. It's not that I'm saying there isn't a God, it's just that the possibility is no more real than infinitely many other things that don't have any good evidence in their favor, such as flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc (the thing that distinguishes God from these in many theists' minds is that they think they have an argument in favor of God, but we beg to differ). That is not because I am ignorant of the arguments in favor, but because I understand that they are insufficient, to put it mildly. If someone is thinking rigorously, William Lane Craig-style arguments just don't get you anywhere. It's just another, "I don't know how it happened, therefore God did it" argument. Last time I checked, it doesn't follow logically that just because you don't know how something happened, that proves that the cause just conveniently happens to be the one you are hoping it is.

I call myself atheist not because I deny God's existence, but because I doubt it. I just don't think there is a God. Just a hunch in proportion to how specific your God claim is (the more specific, the more unlikely, since there is no good argument/evidence for it).

It's not stupid to believe in God, but it is unsupported by logic or evidence.

[sum]

Hello Equestrian

Your post -
Too late, you've already injected yourself into this debate. Don't think you can hide behind these lousy excuses.

I have provided a reason to believe in the existence of God, now it's your turn:

What arguments or evidence can you offer for atheism?

I picked you up on the logic of your reasoning. Perhaps you did not like that because it showed that your logic was somewhat weak.

Please do not tell me how I am to be involved in a pointless discussion of theism and atheism. Your manner does not appear to have improved from the last time you posted on the forum some time ago.

sum

[pr126]

“You can’t prove a negative.”

First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.

Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. But this is madness – this also turns its back on productive thinking. This idea is called “solipsism,” and it refers to the notion that every person lives in his own reality, and what is true in his or her life might not be true for others. This is an old idea and it was shown to be ridiculous many centuries ago. Think about it – if it solipsism really was real, there wouldn’t be any books, schools, learning, or science. And people would never be able to communicate effectively.

[Equestrian]

essentially you provided the old Duns Scotus argument,in a simpler form, and brought into a modern context. You don't need the whole universe for that, a blade of grass will do.

The BEST you can get out of that line is

there is a case to suppose a transcendental being or collective which may or may not have any interest in humans.
It is not necessary to suppose that his being is eternal,and old Duns jumps through quite some hoops for that...
Also, being the cause of something does not necessarily mean complete control,as any parent can testify.

The Duns Scotus' argument for the existence of God is nothing like what I had offered. Scotus' argument is entirely philosophical and relies heavily on Aristotle's hylomorphism. In his argument, Dun Scutus is attempting to provide a logical proof for a first causal agent. My argument begins with the fact of the origin of the universe, from which I infer the best explanation. I am inferring from the body of scientific evidence, not from some medieval theory of matter and form.

All said and done,there may an ARGUMENT for theism,I never denied that, but like any argument, it does not provide proof. It is a case of weighing up evidence, much like a jury in a court of law would do.

Again, I never said my argument was a proof for the existence of God. That was never the point of this debate. It should be clear by now that my objective was to provide reason to believe in the existence of God.

If you say it could that theism is a reasonable position, it has a case, then a rejection of the evidence must be reasonable also, at it is case of JUDGEMENT, and the case is not proven beyond doubt.

Of course you are free to reject the theistic evidence and arguments. But this applies to any subject, be it an argument for evolution, global warming or free-market enterprise. Whether or not you are reasonable for rejecting an argument or evidence is something you alone must determine. I'm sure you realize, however, that our judgments can be skewed when it comes to these kinds of issues, certainly I'm no exception. Our ideologies often get in the way of proper reasoning. That's why it's important to keep an active mind, especially on subjects in which you have not researched or have limited knowledge.

For instance, in the past I had often visited those so-called "rational" forums to debate atheists. I found it peculiar that everytime the debate revolved around religion, the atheist would vigorously defend Islam. There were times when I was assaulted with rage and ridicule for daring to argue that Islam is a doctrine of Arab imperialism. It turned out that in most cases these atheistic defenders of Islam had never even opened the Koran, yet they were entirely convinced that Islam was a religion of peace. Would you say that these atheists were reasonable to reject the evidence I had provided regarding the doctrine of Islam? Well that would depend, wouldn't it? Did I provide a good argument, was the evidence sufficient? just as important, did they have reason to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion?

My approach is simple. Set aside my beliefs, evaluate the argument and follow the evidence.

[Equestrian]

I give you a box and tell you I know there is a fork inside it. If you ask me how I know there is a fork inside it, I just mumble some pseudo-philophical nonsense that doesn't hold any weight, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that it's unlikely that there is a fork in the box just because the idea of a fork being inside of it was an essentially random idea with no good justification. There COULD be a fork in there, but there could also be thousands of other things. Why would I think the fork is any more likely that any of the other thousands of possibilities out there?

Although entertaining, I don't see how your dick-in-a-box story is in any way analogous to my argument. The theistic inference to the best explanation does not derive from "some pseudo-philophical nonsense." As I repeatedly stated, it derives from solid scientific evidence. You may think the scientific evidence "pseudo-philophical nonsense." Perhaps you may go so far as to think science itself "pseudo-philophical nonsense," Why not? it seems that you reject scientific evidence whenever it suites you.

I think on this one, I'll stand on the side of science over your quaint lil' story. Thank you very much.

Someone who understands cosmology would know that hand-waving arguments like "the universe began to exist" hold very, very little weight, indeed.

Then write a letter of complaint to Hawking, Ellis, Penrose, Borde, Guth, Vilenkin and the rest of the scientific community. Demand that they abrogate The Big Bang Theory along with all of the evidence or something. Don't take your grievance out on me. However, I'm sure you know that a mere complaint won't take you far. They'll probably request that you provide evidence to the contrary.

The great unknown is like that box, except a lot bigger, and thus, perhaps more likely to contain "forks" like "God". But I view God as a random proposition with no substantiation. There might be a God, but there might be a flying spaghetti monster, as well. It's not that I'm saying there isn't a God, it's just that the possibility is no more real than infinitely many other things that don't have any good evidence in their favor, such as flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc (the thing that distinguishes God from these in many theists' minds is that they think they have an argument in favor of God, but we beg to differ). That is not because I am ignorant of the arguments in favor, but because I understand that they are insufficient, to put it mildly. If someone is thinking rigorously, William Lane Craig-style arguments just don't get you anywhere. It's just another, "I don't know how it happened, therefore God did it" argument. Last time I checked, it doesn't follow logically that just because you don't know how something happened, that proves that the cause just conveniently happens to be the one you are hoping it is.

Once again, the argument that I provided is not a "god-of-the-gaps" argument. I did not offer a God model that plugs the area in which science is missing. My argument is an inference from the scientific evidence, not an inference apart the scientific evidence.

[Equestrian]

I picked you up on the logic of your reasoning. Perhaps you did not like that because it showed that your logic was somewhat weak.

Please do not tell me how I am to be involved in a pointless discussion of theism and atheism. Your manner does not appear to have improved from the last time you posted on the forum some time ago.

sum

Oh poor summy, ever the victim. Word of advice, don't dish it out if you can't handle it.

[Equestrian]

“You can’t prove a negative.”

First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.

Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. But this is madness – this also turns its back on productive thinking. This idea is called “solipsism,” and it refers to the notion that every person lives in his own reality, and what is true in his or her life might not be true for others. This is an old idea and it was shown to be ridiculous many centuries ago. Think about it – if it solipsism really was real, there wouldn’t be any books, schools, learning, or science. And people would never be able to communicate effectively.

What pr126, do you actually need an atheist high-preist to tell you what to think and how debate? C'mon, you're no lock-step stooge. You can think for yourself. Clearly the moron above is taking you for a fool.

[pr126]

@ Equestrian

Why does your invitation to a debate sounds like taunting?

Anyway, I have no desire to engage in a debate with you. Clearly, you have your ideas, and I have mine.

By default, anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas is a moron, to be ridiculed, disrespected.
You already have your conclusion even before any debate could begin.

Your arrogance and contempt to anyone disagreeing with your ideas has been noted on this forum.

Good day.