Proving God exists round 2

[pr126]

Makeen, you still do not understand the Burden of Proof.
Watch and learn.

[Equestrian]

Makeen, you still do not understand the Burden of Proof.
Watch and learn.

Yet another example of a presumptuous atheist lecturing someone on a subject of which he himself knows nothing about. Why am I not surprised?

Clearly, pr126, it is you that still does not understand the Burden of Proof.

The Burden of Proof is the obligation one carries to provide warrant for his postion. Makeen has done just that. Scroll back to his initial post and viola! right in front of your eyes will be Makeen's attempt to provide warrant for his position. By providing an argument for the existence of God, Makeen has effectively taken the Burden of Proof.

Inform yourself on the issues before you go wagging your finger at people, otherwise you'll just come across as a smug ass-hat.

[Equestrian]

a - When we discover something true, we have discovered truth
b - For truth to be discovered, it must exist.
c - Truth therefore exists before it is discovered
d - Truth that exists before it is discovered is truth that has been applied
e - Truth that is applied is known

Makeen,

The argument you provided above is one giant semantical mess. Rule of thumb, if the premises of your argument are not clear and concise, then chances are it's a bad argument.

At best, the conclusion that can be drawn from your argument is:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This conclusion, however, does absolutely nothing to show that God exists. It's non-religious and can be found in any philosophy of science text book. Although you could use it as a premise of an argument for the existence of God...

BTW don't take my critique personally, I actually applaud your effort to apply reason. Reasoning sorely lacks amongst most Muslims and atheists when it comes to these kinds of subjects.

[pr126]

Equestrian wrote:

Reasoning sorely lacks amongst most Muslims and atheists when it comes to these kinds of subjects.

When people start reasoning and apply critical thinking, they leave religion for good.

All you have is faith. Reason and religion doesn't mix.

[Equestrian]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

I see that you worship at the alter of Lord Sagan. Tell me Saganite, what does the revelation above mean?

Equestrian wrote:

Reasoning sorely lacks amongst most Muslims and atheists when it comes to these kinds of subjects.

When people start reasoning and employ critical thinking, they leave religion for good.

All you have is faith. Reason doesn't come even close.

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does not exist. Poor dear, as an atheist all you have is blind faith.

[pr126]

[Equestrian]

Aww, sore loser. Don't fret the loss, I'll be around if you want a rematch. Though I advise you to practice on your reasoning skills or it'll be another quick K.O.

GG

[pr126]

Equestrian wrote:

Aww, sore loser.

What did I lose? I can't remember participating in a debate, an argument or a wager with you. I simply stated my point of view, as you have yours.

What did you win? Anything?

[pr126]

Equestrian wrote:

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does not exist. Poor dear, as an atheist all you have is blind faith.

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does exist. Poor dear, as a believer all you have is blind faith.

Works this way just as well.

[ringmaster]

Equestrian wrote:

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does not exist. Poor dear, as an atheist all you have is blind faith.

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does exist. Poor dear, as a believer all you have is blind faith.

Works this way just as well.

I have never had a personal eyewitness report from the hereafter.

Have you? I don't think Equestrian has.

[pr126]

Theist do not need evidence. They do not want evidence. That would destroy faith.

[Equestrian]

Equestrian wrote:

Aww, sore loser.

What did I lose? I can't remember participating in a debate, an argument or a wager with you. I simply stated my point of view, as you have yours.

What did you win? Anything?

Now, now my intellectually deprived friend, you did much more than simply state your point of view. You offered a series of rebuttals consisting of uninformed assertions and childish shenanigans, which makes our little exchange a debate. A brief unsophisticated debate, but a debate nonetheless.

What did you lose, you ask?

Quite frankly, you lost credibilty as an active thinking person and demonstrated once again that you are nothing more than a mindless atheist ideologue. Emotionally shackled to an ideology developed through years of secular/leftist indoctrination.

[Equestrian]

Equestrian wrote:

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does not exist. Poor dear, as an atheist all you have is blind faith.

Oh the irony, given the fact that there is no rational reason to believe that God does exist. Poor dear, as a believer all you have is blind faith.

Works this way just as well.

No, actually it doesn't. What you have shown in your response here is that ignorance and ideology has once again depraved you of reason.

1. You claimed that reason and God don't mix. The irony, as I pointed out, is that you cannot offer one coherent reason to believe that God does not exist. Yet still you remain an atheist. This shows unequivocally that, contrary to your claim, reason and atheism don't mix. Atleast in your case.

Your only response was to offer a tu quoque. (hint: a tu quoque is an elementary logical fallacy committed primarily by grade schoolers who have not yet been instructed on the principles of reasoning)

Even if it is the case that theism is unsupported by reason, it does nothing to substantiate atheism. Atheism is still unsupported by reason. All this would show is that both atheism and theism don't mix with reason.

2. Unlike atheism, there are many reasons to believe God exists. You're just entirely ignorant on this subject. There are three types of evidential considerations to justify a belief, such as belief in God or belief in no God:

a) Logical proofs: evidence substantiated by philosophical inductive/deductive arguments.

b) Inference to the best explanation: this is the lynchpin of the scientific method and is the kind of evidence that justifies theories such as evolution.

c) Testimonial evidence: this is the kind of evidence that plays a role in the court of law and historical studies.


The fact is that we have evidence for each of the sort for the existence of God. I'll briefly go over the second sort of evidence for the existence of God, inference to the best explanation.

In inference to the best explanation we begin with a body of facts to be explained. We then assemble a collection of live explanatory options to account for these facts. Finally, we select that explanation which, if true, would best explain the facts in question.
For example, in evolutionary theory we have data points such as fossil records, natural selection, gene flow, etc. which are brought together and unified through inductive procedures (sift through a collection of explanations). From which we then infer the best explanation of these facts: evolution.

A simple but excellent example of a theistic inference to the best explanation is based on the fact of the origin of the universe.

We now have strong evidence that the universe is not eternal, but began to exist a finite time ago. This has been confirmed by both science and philosophy. In fact in 2003, physicists Borde, Guth and Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is in a cosmic state of expansion cannot be infinite, but must have a past space-time boundary.

Now it's difficult to see how there can be any explanation of this fact apart from theism. The only alternative to theism seems to be that universe came into being uncaused from non-being. But that's just to admit that there is no alternative explanation of the origin of the universe. There just isn't any competing hypothesis to theism available to the atheist to explain the origin of the universe. Hence the following inference:


P1 The universe began to exist

P2 The best explanation of the beginning of the universe is a transcendent Creator

C Therefore, a transcendent Creator exists


Here we have evidence for God in the form of inference to the best explanation. This is just one reason out of many that gives warrant for belief in God, leaving atheism in the ideological trash with no reason to believe.

So at this point I'll revise your uninformed assertion to something closer to the truth:

All you have is blind faith. Reason and atheism don't mix.


G'day

[pr126]

Your post above contains the following logical fallacies:

Argument from Ignorance,
Argument from Authority,
Bald Assertion,
Begging the Question.

All you have is blind faith. Reason and Religion don't mix.

G'Day.

[Equestrian]

Your post above contains the following logical fallacies:

Argument from Ignorance,
Argument from Authority,
Bald Assertion,
Begging the Question.

All you have is blind faith. Reason and Religion don't mix.

G'Day.

You're out of your league, chump. Now, go play with the little boys.

[pr126]

Well done Equestrian. You have concluded the thread with impeccable logic and sound reasoning.

Thanks for playing.

[Equestrian]

Well done Equestrian. You have concluded the thread with impeccable logic and sound reasoning.

I concluded my argument with impeccable logic and sound reasoning, certainly. I ended the debate by ridiculing you for your dim-witted rebuttal.

Except... You didn't prove the existence of a god. Not to worry, so far none did.

Are you a special needs person or did you just skip all of your reading and comprehension classes? My objective in this debate was not to prove God, but to provide reason to believe. Your objective was to provide reason for atheism.

You made the indolent claim that God and reason don't mix; belief in God is based on blind faith. I countered that, in truth, it is the other way around. Atheism is wishful thinking and nothing more.

The floor was all yours to provide just one reason to believe atheism is true, yet you failed to do so. In the absence of any reasonable grounds for atheism, all I had to do was give one reason to believe in God. And I did just that. I provided evidence in the form of inference to the best explanation for the origin of the universe which gives warrant for belief in God, showing that belief in God is not based on blind faith but on reason. You have shown that atheism is for idiots and ideologues.


Now place the dunce cap back on your head and return to the corner of the room.

[sum]

Hello Equestrian

Your quote -
We now have strong evidence that the universe is not eternal, but began to exist a finite time ago. This has been confirmed by both science and philosophy. In fact in 2003, physicists Borde, Guth and Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is in a cosmic state of expansion cannot be infinite, but must have a past space-time boundary.

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

You are basing your point on the assumption that all facts are known. Do you think that all facts are known relating to the origin of the universe and what existed before its existance? I have now learned that philosophy has a role in showing that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. I never cease to learn.

sum

[Equestrian]

You are basing your point on the assumption that all facts are known. Do you think that all facts are known relating to the origin of the universe and what existed before its existance?

sum

Please read the argument again. If you still don't fully grasp it, then read again. My presentation utilized grade school pedagogy, so it really shouldn't be difficult to understand.

It should be obvious that I am in no way basing my argument on the assumption that everything is known. Had I worked from that assumption, there would be no need for me to provide an argument in the first place.

My argument is based on the remarkable breakthroughs of science and philosophy regarding the origin of the universe. The evidence is overwhelming and the science is sound, the universe had a cosmic beginning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem proves that the universe had a finite past even though science has not provided a physical discription of the first split second of the existence of the universe, because the BGV Theorem holds regardless of any physical discription of the early universe.

Physicist, Alexander Vilenkin states:

"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."

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.


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

Yes, bescause as I previously stated the only alternative explanation for the origin of the universe is that it popped into existence uncaused from non-existence, which is literally a worse explanation than magic. Unless you can provide an inference to the best explanation regarding the origin of the universe for atheism, then theists are well within reason to believe in the existence of God.

I did not set out to provide a knock-down proof for the existence of God in this debate, rather I provided justification for God's existence. As such, I thoroughly defeated pr126's absurd claim that "God and reason don't mix." Pr126 had ample time to provide justification for atheism, yet he failed to do so. Apparently pr126 doesn't know why he believes God does not exist. Obviously the guy takes it on a blind leap of faith.

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

I have now learned that philosophy has a role in showing that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. I never cease to learn.

Philosophy is the King of the knowledge disciplines. Without philosophy there is no scientific method. The laws of physics are, after all, expressions of mathematics and logic. You're learning, that's a good thing. Keep it up.

[peterpin]

Hang on a minute, there area few problems with that argument.

OK, the universe has a BEGINING. It probably has an end to.

It is somewhat of a leap to say that this provides any kind of proof for the existence ofGod.

The universe started in a "big bang". It will not expand indefinitely,but eventually contract again, at least that seems to be the generally held theory at the moment.

So there is an alternative explanation: an eternally "pulsating" universe.There have been an infinite number of universes before the current one, and there will be possibly in as many afterwards. It cannot be precluded from the current theories in physics, so,even though not proven, it is an answer equally as good an answer as saying there must be a God who jump-started the universe.

The simple fact is that we simply don't know all the relevant facts about the universe, and many assertions are only held tentatively by science,as a theory.

So, to argue that the beginning of the university proves the existence of God is simply like saying: The universe had a beginning. We don't know excactly how it happened,so it must be God. In ancient times people did not properly understand volcanoes either, so they explained them with divine actions.

While I will say that the fact that the universe has a beginning could be taken as a hint to the existence of God, it is not necessary to make that jump. It is an appeal to ignorance.

Another problem is that proofs of this kind never lead to the notion of a God that has any kind of interest in mankind, guides them, loves them, saves them.

What we can say at best is that this line of reasoning does not prohibit a belief in God. That is usually how far reasoning like this can take us. A befief that reason does not allow is foolish. A belief that has been proven, ceases to be a belief and becomes a fact.

You have not proved the existence of God. But you have made a case that believing in God does not necessarily contradict science. A CASE, not proof. As with any kind of case, there is always another way of looking at it.

And so it should be.