Debate Now Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

[yiostheoy]

If his purpose is to discuss God only in the Judeo-Christian context then he should have stated that in the title of his thread.

For accomplished readers, there is no need for such an explicit title statement. Context makes it clear, particularly the three passages I provided to you. Indeed, the essay's opening sentence -- "Almost daily in United States one encounters stimuli that ask one to accept that God (in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word/being) exists. " -- establishes that context. That the essay, thus thread questions/theme, repeatedly expressly states "Judeo-Christian" conceptions of God as the framework under consideration establishes solidly that context for the discussion. As if that were not enough, the first paragraph of the essay concludes by asking expressly whether it is "rational to believe in The Divine as depicted in Jewish and Christian theological traditions."

he should have left out any arguments by Aristotle and Plato on the subject because they were neither Jewish nor Christian.

Here again, you demonstrate utter reading ineptitude by your failing to recognize the contextual relevance of Plato and Aristotle's being mention in connection with TCA. The TCA is a general notion that derives from a long held understanding that needs no particular or any form of theism to comprehend. Things, for the most part, do not arise out of nothing. Aquinas didn't invent that notion, but he is who adopted it as a means for arguing that his Judeo-Christian God exists.

Quite simply, Plato and Aristotle did not present arguments for monotheism, much less for the Judeo-Christian concept of God. For in Plato, one does not find "God," only "god" or "gods." God was not for Plato the name of a being or entity.

Aristotle presented the "uncaused cause" or "Prime Mover" idea. His concept of the Prime Mover is essentially that of Pantheism's God. Aristotle, who was clearly a monotheist, argued that the Prime Mover had to be immaterial. It could not be made of any kind of stuff, because matter is capable of being acted upon, it has potential to change. Since it is immaterial, it cannot perform any kind of physical, bodily action. Therefore, Aristotle thought, the activity of the Prime Mover, God, must be purely spiritual and intellectual. Thus, for Aristotle too, God was not the anthropomorphic God of Jews and Christians.

since you want some Judeo-Christian Pantheism...

Is your reading comprehension so bad that you fail to glean that not only have I no desire for any "Judeo-Christian Pantheism," I'm not going to discuss further anything having to do with Pantheism in this thread? The thread's OP may indulge that thematic shift of the thread's focus; that's his/her purview as the creator of the thread. I will not; I don't suffer fools at all.

Plato and Aristotle DID present arguments for a monotheist God.

And this is precisely why Socrates was ordered executed as well.

Xelor re-read the 2nd paragraph of your post re Aristotle & Plato.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If his purpose is to discuss God only in the Judeo-Christian context then he should have stated that in the title of his thread.

For accomplished readers, there is no need for such an explicit title statement. Context makes it clear, particularly the three passages I provided to you. Indeed, the essay's opening sentence -- "Almost daily in United States one encounters stimuli that ask one to accept that God (in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word/being) exists. " -- establishes that context. That the essay, thus thread questions/theme, repeatedly expressly states "Judeo-Christian" conceptions of God as the framework under consideration establishes solidly that context for the discussion. As if that were not enough, the first paragraph of the essay concludes by asking expressly whether it is "rational to believe in The Divine as depicted in Jewish and Christian theological traditions."

he should have left out any arguments by Aristotle and Plato on the subject because they were neither Jewish nor Christian.

Here again, you demonstrate utter reading ineptitude by your failing to recognize the contextual relevance of Plato and Aristotle's being mention in connection with TCA. The TCA is a general notion that derives from a long held understanding that needs no particular or any form of theism to comprehend. Things, for the most part, do not arise out of nothing. Aquinas didn't invent that notion, but he is who adopted it as a means for arguing that his Judeo-Christian God exists.

Quite simply, Plato and Aristotle did not present arguments for monotheism, much less for the Judeo-Christian concept of God. For in Plato, one does not find "God," only "god" or "gods." God was not for Plato the name of a being or entity.

Aristotle presented the "uncaused cause" or "Prime Mover" idea. His concept of the Prime Mover is essentially that of Pantheism's God. Aristotle, who was clearly a monotheist, argued that the Prime Mover had to be immaterial. It could not be made of any kind of stuff, because matter is capable of being acted upon, it has potential to change. Since it is immaterial, it cannot perform any kind of physical, bodily action. Therefore, Aristotle thought, the activity of the Prime Mover, God, must be purely spiritual and intellectual. Thus, for Aristotle too, God was not the anthropomorphic God of Jews and Christians.

since you want some Judeo-Christian Pantheism...

Is your reading comprehension so bad that you fail to glean that not only have I no desire for any "Judeo-Christian Pantheism," I'm not going to discuss further anything having to do with Pantheism in this thread? The thread's OP may indulge that thematic shift of the thread's focus; that's his/her purview as the creator of the thread. I will not; I don't suffer fools at all.

Plato and Aristotle DID present arguments for a monotheist God.

And this is precisely why Socrates was ordered executed as well.

Xelor re-read the 2nd paragraph of your post re Aristotle & Plato.

The first time I mention Plato or Aristotle is in post 45. You'll find that my comments derive from a remark in post 43, which is about Pantheism.

In the paragraphs following my first mention of Plato and Aristotle, you'll note that I wrote the following:

Quite simply, Plato and Aristotle did not present arguments for monotheism, much less for the Judeo-Christian concept of God. For in Plato, one does not find "God," only "god" or "gods." God was not for Plato the name of a being or entity.

in Plato, one does not find "God," only "god" or "gods." God was not for Plato the name of a being or entity.

for Aristotle too, God was not the anthropomorphic God of Jews and Christians.

The problem with declaring based on his writings in Metaphysics is that the man's arguments had nothing to do with theism. The difference being that while Aristotle argued that there must be a "Prime Mover," which he describes as "pure actuality" rather than some sort of anthropomorphic entity, he didn't argue that a god, the Judeo-Christian notion of God, was that mover. Aristotle's is a secular argument, thus neither monotheistic or polytheistic.

As I alluded to in post 45, context is "everything." Were I to say "it's raining," would you think it's raining everywhere, or just where I am? Of course, you'd think it's raining where I am. The context, even though I didn't explicitly provide it is apparent to you because you understand how weather works. Reading Metaphysics and making inferences about what Aristotle meant, one must keep in mind the context in which that text's arguments are presented, and theism isn't part of it.

 

[sakinago]

Discussion Rules:

1. Present your arguments in dialectical form: introduction and assertion, argument(s), counterargument(s), rebuttal, conclusion. You don't have to take on or reply to the entirely of a given post, but if you feel compelled to make your own claim or refute one or more portions of another's claim, structure your argument/refutation dialectically. In other words, if you assert someone's comments are wrong, entirely or in part, do so dialectically. If you are just musing about what you read, or perhaps building upon the ideas someone else presented, but not disagreeing with it, there's no need to do so dialectically.
2. Provide, or be ready to provide if asked, references/citations (weblinks are preferred, but if you must cite a non-web based source, APA/MLA format will do) for any facts you use to bolster your position and that (1) cannot be seen as generally and well known by folks who lack specialized training with regard to the facts you cite, or (2) that are debateable. For example, if you were to use the fact that something can come from nothing, you need to provide a physics or mathematical reference that shows that to be factually true because most people believe that something cannot come from nothing. Anything you don't/cannot reference is taken to be your own assertion and we'll look to your post for support for it.
3. You must respond directly to all non-rhetorical questions asked of you to the extent they pertain to your post(s) and their content. If the answer you must give is "I don't know," or "I can't explain it," or something more or less to that effect, then it just is. Obviously, you don't need to respond to rhetorical questions.

With that administrivia out of the way, here's my opening argument.

Believing God Exists Based on Arguments for His Existence is Illogical​

Almost daily in United States one encounters stimuli that ask one to accept that God (in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word/being) exists. For example, every denomination of American currency has clearly stated on it “In God we trust.” The fact of the matter, however, is that literally millions of Americans do not trust in any god because, quite simply, they do not believe there exists any supernatural entity, much less the one referred to in Judeo-Christian dogma as God or Yahweh. Accordingly, while it makes sense to consider the verity of whether any god exists, it also makes sense to ask whether it is rational to believe in The Divine as depicted in Jewish and Christian theological traditions.

Many philosophers have considered and presented arguments for why they believe God exists. I cannot here achieve their levels of consideration on the matter, but I can examine their arguments and make of them what I will. Thus, I have reviewed the best arguments for and against the Divine’s existence and developed my own argument about whether it is rational, based entirely on those arguments, to believe The Divine exists. To that end, this paper argues whether any of the main theistic arguments for the being of God “hold enough water” to merit one’s accepting them. Specifically, I assert that it makes little rational sense to believe in God solely on the basis of the major arguments for His existence because not one them is “bulletproof.” I will show furthermore that God’s very existence, quite simply, hangs by the thinnest of threads and that more now than ever, the only things militating strongly for believing in Him is a mix of faith and timidity, not pure reason.

Before examining whether it makes sense to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, one must first consider whether the singular God proposed by Judaism and Christianity, is plausible and probable. The answer is given that monotheism defines God as being all powerful, and as having created the universe in which we exist, there being only one God is not only plausible, but also necessary. When God elects to exist in this universe, He must exist and move through it using the constraints He defined for it. Were there two or more Gods, it would then be possible for one to form Himself into an immovable object while the other becomes an irresistible force. Those two things, though they may not begin in contact with one another, could eventually meet. When they do, what will happen? Will the object move, or will the force be resisted? Given the rules by which this universe is governed, the two cannot coexist; one must yield. The god that yields is a less supreme being, thereby establishing the other as the Supreme Being. Thus in our universe, and as Jews and Christians have defined God, it makes sense, if one is to believe in God, to believe that S/He is the sole such Supreme Being. There can be only one.

Is there a rebuttal to this logic? Frankly, no, there is not, at least not until one introduces the idea of a multiverse, and even then, it silly to consider the idea. As intriguing is the idea of a multiverse, and for whatever benefits it yields physicists, the fact is neither they, I, nor you, dear reader, can leave this universe; thus it does not matter if there are multiple Supreme Beings, each of whom presides over His/Her own universe at any given moment. It stands to reason, therefore, that in this universe there can only be one kind of god like the one defined in the Bible and Torah.

For the sake of argument, however, consider that there might be multiple “Gods,” each of whom can be omni-/present/potent and omniscient (OPP). Insofar as they cannot coexist in our universe, it is silly to consider whether they all exist or whether only one exists. Even if they were to “universe hop” and at various times visit ours, at any one time, there would still only be one of them present within our universe. To that end, the one OPP God present at any given time would be indistinguishable to us from all the others. Therefore, the “current” OPP God may as well be the only OPP God because we cannot experience any potential other OPP Gods independently of the one with us at the moment. Does that, in the abstract, eliminate the possibility that multiple OPP Gods might exist? No, not entirely, but as men do not exist in the abstract, we need only worry about the being of the God who can and does exist in sphere in which we find ourselves.

Argument:

Having shown that there can only be one God such as the one depicted in the Bible, we now can look at whether it is rational to believe that He exists based on the major arguments asserting he does. In my mind, no, it does not make sense to believe in God, certainly not on any purely logical basis. In logic there are essentially three forms of argumentation: abductive, inductive, and deductive. Thus if one is to argue that God exists, one must apply one or several of those forms of reason to make the case that He exists.

The weakest form of argument is one based on abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is essentially one’s “best guess” based on what one has observed. The abductive argument for God’s existence essentially says “We can’t identify anything else that is the cause of “everything;” therefore, it must be the being we have defined as God.” Given the nature and scope of traits Judeo-Christianity ascribes to God, along with the myriad things that have been done in His name, an argument for His existence needs to be stronger than a “best guess.” One can hardly consider a “best guess,” that is, not being able to identify a better alternative, as logically sufficient for believing something as grand as God exists. Curiously, however, the best argument for God being – Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument -- happens to be an abductive one.

A better argument would be a robustly developed inductive one. There are several routinely offered inductive arguments in support of God’s existence. The thing with all inductive arguments is that at best, they can only attest to their claim being likely. No inductive argument, no matter its rigor, shows incontrovertibly that the assertion it attempts to prove is so. Therefore, if one is to accept any inductive argument, one must necessarily concur that its premises and conclusion(s) are valid logically, and in turn accept that the likelihood of its conclusion’s verity is more likely than that of any alternative conclusion.

That leaves us with deductive reasoning, also known as “formal arguments.” Of the three forms of reasoning, the only one that can guarantee that one’s conclusion is correct is deductive reasoning. That is not to suggest that every deductive argument is both valid and correct, for many are not; however, were one found that demonstrates God’s existence, it would truly be illogical to deny the existence of God. That said, quite simply, there is no formal argument that proves God’s existence.

Looking at the inductive and abductive arguments asserting that God exists, and since there is no deductive one that makes not adopting such a belief a fool’s game, I assert that the basis for believing in God cannot be fully logical. It cannot be so because each argument advocating God’s existence has at least one huge logical gap.

Counterargument:

Over the centuries, multiple arguments proponing God’s existence have been posited as counterarguments to the outright denial of God’s existence, or more precisely as “proofs” that God exists. The most commonly cited arguments in support of God’s being are:

• The Bible tells me God exists; therefore, He does. (aka, The Bible tells me so) – This argument says, “God is 'all that and a bag of chips."' God inspired various people to write the Bible/Torah. They did as instructed and God didn’t lie to them. They assert that those 'Divinely inspired' books say God exists; therefore, God does exist.”
• The Ontological Argument – Anselmo d'Aosta first introduced this argument. It essentially says that because we can imagine God – the perfect, OPP entity defined in the Bible – existing, He does exist.
• The Moral Argument – This argument says that we observe moral character among humanity and the best explanation for that character’s being is belief in God. Thus belief in God is preferable to denying that He is.
• The Argument of Degrees – First proposed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, syllogistically, this argument – borrowing it seems from mathematics the idea that for any given number, there can be a larger number or a smaller number – goes as follows:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

• The Cosmological Argument – Proposed by both Plato and Aristotle, it is Thomas Aquinas who generally gets credited with this argument. For brevity, as with his preceding argument, it is presented in simple, syllogistic form and adapted to accommodate the Big Bang Theory:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause, and God is that cause.
4. God thus exists.

Although there are other purportedly logical arguments for God’s existence, the preceding ones are those Theists most often proffer, the Cosmological Argument and the Argument of Degrees being the two strongest, rationally speaking. Theists present one or several of these arguments, and insofar as they view the arguments as logically valid, assert that their belief in God’s existence is therefore based on reason

Rebuttal:
Whereas the arguments God apologists present are ostensibly logical, one of them, on even the most puerile level, is not, and several of them have big gaps in their reasoning. Moreover, one can be applied equally well to “prove” things which the slightest bit of common sense shows do not make sense. Lastly, the best of them, the Cosmological Argument, asks one to accept as probable something that is only likely – and that, only by a very long shot given 20th and 21st century scientific discoveries -- because we have yet to find something more likely.

Let us look the logical failings of each of the counterarguments noted above.

• The Bible tells me so – The logical problem with this argument is that it is circular. It is invalid; consequently, it should not be a basis for one’s claiming to have a rational basis for believing God exists.
• The Ontological Argument – This brazen argument fails on at least three fronts. First, its line of reasoning implies that if one can conceive of, say, a perfect lake, or a perfect “anything,” that thing must exist. By implying that if it is logically possible for God to exist, He thus does exist, this line of argument suffers from the bare assertion fallacy for the logic of this argument exists absent one shred of tangible evidence that unquestionably supports it. Second, the argument depends on God’s being perfect, yet, according to the Bible, God made man in his image, and man is far from perfect. Lastly, this argument is circular; syllogistically, it asserts:

1. I can conceive of God being.
2. Therefore God is because I can conceive of Him.

• The Moral Argument – The problem with this argument is not that it is outright invalid, for there is no denying that morality exists among humanity. The problem is morality’s non-universality among humanity, along with it’s not deriving from God’s existence. Consider the Frist Crusade of 1099 wherein Rome’s soldiers murdered thousands of Jews [1]. It is entirely plausible, certain if one accepts Hobbes theory of the social contract [2], that they slaughtered those people due to social mores and exigencies, such as the need for European powers, namely the Roman Catholic Church, to recover its supremacy and to establish political hegemony over the known parts of the planet. Seen from the perspective of the social and political realities of the Middle Ages, one can easily show that God had nothing to do with much of import the Crusaders did, much less with their murders and pillaging. Indeed, given God’s sixth Commandment – thou shalt not murder -- it is very hard credibly, logically, to consider the morality of the Crusaders, and later Judeo-Christian zealots, as being God-caused. If anything, their actions were spurred by an “anti-God,” rather than a God, or perhaps even by a god other the one who issued the 6th Commandment. (In U.S., we say “kill,” but a correct translation of the Ten Commandments from Hebrew shows the term given in the 6th Commandment was “ratsakh,“ which refers only and always to murder, manslaughter and other forms of unjust killings. [3])

• The Argument of Degrees – The rationale of this argument, though it couches itself in logical structure, suffers from the fact that the entity in question is not the next or preceding number in a sequence, but rather God. In consideration of things/entities having more substance than numbers, one need not believe in an object of greater degree to believe in and accept an object of lesser degree. Likewise, the same holds for the preceding statement’s converse. If one encounters the ugliest duckling one has ever seen, that one has does not make it necessary that an even uglier one exists, despite one’s not having seen it. Too, if one finds the smallest star, it is entirely possible that there simply is no smaller star. Ostensibly, God could transform himself into a smaller star, but then God would not be God, He’d be a star, whence after there would then be no God; moreover, God becoming a star would give greater credibility to Astrolatarianism.
• The Cosmological Argument (TCA) – Since time immemorial, it has been self-evident that things cannot and do not come from “no thing.” The problem I see with the logic of TCA is not that it is inherently illogical, but rather that it nowhere establishes that the cause for all we see is in fact God of the Bible; it merely asserts that He, and not something or “someone” else, is the cause. It is here that TCA falls apart as a sufficiently logical basis for believing in God’s existence.
  
  The reader will recall that we examined whether it is possible for there to be more than one God such as the one described in the Bible, and we concluded that it is not. In TCA, however, Aquinas argues that the God of the Bible is the cause of all things. However, what Aquinas overlooks in his argument is the possibility that there are in fact multiple gods, all be they each very powerful and bright, though none of them being an OPP God, and that one or several of them created everything. The problem with TCA is that in “proving” God exists, it discounts the possibility – the argument rests upon the tenets of probability – that there really is not only one God. Might it be instead that there were multiple gods who created everything, but that only one was entrusted to tell the tale of how and that they did so? Might it not be possible, perhaps even probable, given that we envious, avaricious men “made in God’s image,” were told the tale by an equally “fame craving god among several gods” who took all the credit for himself, allowing or leading the Bible writers, and thus us, to believe that he is the OPP God?
  
  Celebrity seeking gods aside, in 2014, TCA suffered another blow when scientists discovered a mathematical proof that shows that something can indeed result from nothing. Professor Dongshan He and his team at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics proved that in a “true vacuum” (the term that describes the state of nothingness), it is possible for “quantum fluctuations” to spontaneously produce a universe. [4] Potentially, therefore, ours is a universe that was so created. This discovery is quite momentous, for although Dr. Dongshan has not demonstrated that our universe did emerge spontaneously from nothing, he has shown that (1) a change in the quantity of energy (presumably – at least to my mind -- not a thing at all) present can result in something coming to exist that before did not exist, and (2) that it is possible for the universe to have been a thing that did so come into existence. Now one might argue that God is that energy that fluxed; however, the God of the Bible is not presented as energy; He’s presented as a being, a “thing,” that is, He is presented as a being having more substance than does energy. In that regard, one must either redefine the being of God, or accept that He doesn’t exist. Either way, there is yet another chink in the armor of TCA; the probability that God – as we presently claim to understand and perceive Him – is the cause has been significantly reduced. What remains now is determining whether our universe was created “from nothing” rather than by God.

Conclusion:

The preceding discussion has shown that among the varied reasons for believing in God, logic doesn’t logically and on its own make sense as a cause for so believing. One will recall that this paper never sought to establish whether God does exist – I do not know if God exists; too, I cannot prove that He does or does not. Instead, I can evaluate whether one’s saying one believes in God because it is logical to do so, because it is logical that He exists, is, well, illogical. The dialectic argument presented herein shows that because each of the logical justifications for believing in God’s existence is flawed, neither collectively nor individually are they logical enough to serve as the sole and purely logical reason(s) for asserting logic is the reason one believes God exists. Succinctly, citing just logic (at least that of the major arguments) as the reason for believing in God’s existence – if only because there is no formal argument for God’s existence -- isn’t sufficient to make logical one’s belief in God’s being, no matter how much reason one attempts to apply or how reasonable be the arguments one offers. Something alongside logic is necessary to enable belief that God exists. For many people, that thing is faith.

So, if not logic, what might militate for one’s having faith that God exists? Emotional contentment is a perfectly fine, plausible and probable reason. What gains might make the emotional satisfaction found in theism “worth it?” Parrying the risk of spiritual damnation is one thing. If God exists as depicted in the Bible, one will be in a “whole heap o’ trouble and dismay,” to use my Southern father’s parlance, if, after passing, one obtains confirmation He exists, and one did not believe in Him. Little is lost by believing in God if it turns out He really does not exist; but much is lost if one did not believe, and He does exist as stated. Furthermore, as there is today no formal way to disprove God’s existence, and given the promises He is said to have made, it is certainly more emotionally calming to “buy into” God existing than it is to believe that when one dies “that’s it.” Additionally, it just feels good to have faith that there is something after the reality we know in life; it feels good to believe that the people whom we knew, loved and lost in life will become known to us again in an afterlife.

So, if there is to be any logic found in believing in God, it is that it is illogical for one to feel emotionally dissatisfied and do nothing about it. If believing in God will effect that change, then by all means, one should believe in God and all that He offers; however, in so doing, one should also realize that it is not the logic of God existing that drives one’s belief in Him.


References
[1] “Crusaders massacre of Jerusalem was done in cold-blood, not religious frenzy, historian argues.” Medievalists.net. January 2011.

[2] Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: With selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Hackett: Cambridge, MA. 1994.

[3] Got Questions.org. “Why is ‘You shall not murder’ in the Ten Commandments?’

[4] Dongshan He, Dongfeng Gao, and Qing-yu Cai. “Spontaneous Creation of the Universe from Nothing.” http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf. Published on Physics Review D, April 2014.

So far I have gone as far as the first sentence in your 4th paragraph. And yes there is a rebuttal, and it's that your first inference about an all powerful god being constrained to the same universe(s) he creates. This does not logically follow, since there has to be some form a causality that would require a being outside of the universe and all the rules it set upon it, to then create it. What you're asserting is like saying that a scientist made a rat maze, and after they have made it are now restrained to that maze. Or a game creator, now living inside of the game...I do not see the need for an all powerful being to then be forced to be constrained by their own rules.

I'll will read further

 

[sakinago]

Damaged Eagle, GaryDog, RetiredGySgt, et al,

"Believe in God" --- OR --- "Don't Believe in God" --- It makes no difference. But first, you need to discuss what you mean by "God." IF there was such a thing as a Supreme Being (SB) or Ultimate Cosmic Entity (UCE), (AKA: God) then what attributes and characteristics would it have? If there were such a think, would it be imaginable and understood by humanity?

Since the Six Century BCE, there have been (what we interpret today) as three systems as to what humanity comprehends in form.

• Religion

§ There are multiple Religions with varying concepts be the supernatural. While some are similar, few are the same.
​

• Science

§ One of many constructs that humanity uses to understand the universe and is mechanisms as observed and recorded.
​

• Magic (Not to be confused with the illusions devised by man.)

§ The astro-interference and mystical activity that couples the powers of the supernatural (Religion) with that of the laws that describe the objective world (Science).
​

Since there is no universal definition of the SB/UCE, and that "faith" in existence lacks the necessity of the Empirical Evidence, or a description of an agreed upon definable; I submit that to say you believe in a SB/UCE is a symptom of an irrational mental outcome. To have faith that there is some thing unseen and undefined, passed down through legend, is no more rational that to believe in Zeus, Merlin, Odin or the Flying Purple People Eater. It would be no less rational than holding a belief in --- Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monsters or that Extraterrestrials have visited Earth.

What do we know (how do we know what we know) that would even permit us to intelligently take a position (for or against) the SB/UCE?

Most Respectfully,
R

So in response to the ARGUMENT section. While you are correct there is no concrete deductive reasoning argument for gods existence...if there was, what would be the point. One of the pillars of Judeo-Christian theism is that god granted free will to humans, if we all know for certain an all powerful god existed, that's going to put quite the constrain on the same free will we were supposably granted. If we all knew he existed, and that he's powerful enough to create the entirety of the universe, why would we question otherwise, or try to prove or bet against an all powerful being? That would be just stupid and crazy.

I will read further, (sorry I don't want to forgot points as I read, so I've conversing by piecemeal sections).

 

[sakinago]

Discussion Rules:

1. Present your arguments in dialectical form: introduction and assertion, argument(s), counterargument(s), rebuttal, conclusion. You don't have to take on or reply to the entirely of a given post, but if you feel compelled to make your own claim or refute one or more portions of another's claim, structure your argument/refutation dialectically. In other words, if you assert someone's comments are wrong, entirely or in part, do so dialectically. If you are just musing about what you read, or perhaps building upon the ideas someone else presented, but not disagreeing with it, there's no need to do so dialectically.
2. Provide, or be ready to provide if asked, references/citations (weblinks are preferred, but if you must cite a non-web based source, APA/MLA format will do) for any facts you use to bolster your position and that (1) cannot be seen as generally and well known by folks who lack specialized training with regard to the facts you cite, or (2) that are debateable. For example, if you were to use the fact that something can come from nothing, you need to provide a physics or mathematical reference that shows that to be factually true because most people believe that something cannot come from nothing. Anything you don't/cannot reference is taken to be your own assertion and we'll look to your post for support for it.
3. You must respond directly to all non-rhetorical questions asked of you to the extent they pertain to your post(s) and their content. If the answer you must give is "I don't know," or "I can't explain it," or something more or less to that effect, then it just is. Obviously, you don't need to respond to rhetorical questions.

With that administrivia out of the way, here's my opening argument.

Believing God Exists Based on Arguments for His Existence is Illogical​

Almost daily in United States one encounters stimuli that ask one to accept that God (in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word/being) exists. For example, every denomination of American currency has clearly stated on it “In God we trust.” The fact of the matter, however, is that literally millions of Americans do not trust in any god because, quite simply, they do not believe there exists any supernatural entity, much less the one referred to in Judeo-Christian dogma as God or Yahweh. Accordingly, while it makes sense to consider the verity of whether any god exists, it also makes sense to ask whether it is rational to believe in The Divine as depicted in Jewish and Christian theological traditions.

Many philosophers have considered and presented arguments for why they believe God exists. I cannot here achieve their levels of consideration on the matter, but I can examine their arguments and make of them what I will. Thus, I have reviewed the best arguments for and against the Divine’s existence and developed my own argument about whether it is rational, based entirely on those arguments, to believe The Divine exists. To that end, this paper argues whether any of the main theistic arguments for the being of God “hold enough water” to merit one’s accepting them. Specifically, I assert that it makes little rational sense to believe in God solely on the basis of the major arguments for His existence because not one them is “bulletproof.” I will show furthermore that God’s very existence, quite simply, hangs by the thinnest of threads and that more now than ever, the only things militating strongly for believing in Him is a mix of faith and timidity, not pure reason.

Before examining whether it makes sense to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, one must first consider whether the singular God proposed by Judaism and Christianity, is plausible and probable. The answer is given that monotheism defines God as being all powerful, and as having created the universe in which we exist, there being only one God is not only plausible, but also necessary. When God elects to exist in this universe, He must exist and move through it using the constraints He defined for it. Were there two or more Gods, it would then be possible for one to form Himself into an immovable object while the other becomes an irresistible force. Those two things, though they may not begin in contact with one another, could eventually meet. When they do, what will happen? Will the object move, or will the force be resisted? Given the rules by which this universe is governed, the two cannot coexist; one must yield. The god that yields is a less supreme being, thereby establishing the other as the Supreme Being. Thus in our universe, and as Jews and Christians have defined God, it makes sense, if one is to believe in God, to believe that S/He is the sole such Supreme Being. There can be only one.

Is there a rebuttal to this logic? Frankly, no, there is not, at least not until one introduces the idea of a multiverse, and even then, it silly to consider the idea. As intriguing is the idea of a multiverse, and for whatever benefits it yields physicists, the fact is neither they, I, nor you, dear reader, can leave this universe; thus it does not matter if there are multiple Supreme Beings, each of whom presides over His/Her own universe at any given moment. It stands to reason, therefore, that in this universe there can only be one kind of god like the one defined in the Bible and Torah.

For the sake of argument, however, consider that there might be multiple “Gods,” each of whom can be omni-/present/potent and omniscient (OPP). Insofar as they cannot coexist in our universe, it is silly to consider whether they all exist or whether only one exists. Even if they were to “universe hop” and at various times visit ours, at any one time, there would still only be one of them present within our universe. To that end, the one OPP God present at any given time would be indistinguishable to us from all the others. Therefore, the “current” OPP God may as well be the only OPP God because we cannot experience any potential other OPP Gods independently of the one with us at the moment. Does that, in the abstract, eliminate the possibility that multiple OPP Gods might exist? No, not entirely, but as men do not exist in the abstract, we need only worry about the being of the God who can and does exist in sphere in which we find ourselves.

Argument:

Having shown that there can only be one God such as the one depicted in the Bible, we now can look at whether it is rational to believe that He exists based on the major arguments asserting he does. In my mind, no, it does not make sense to believe in God, certainly not on any purely logical basis. In logic there are essentially three forms of argumentation: abductive, inductive, and deductive. Thus if one is to argue that God exists, one must apply one or several of those forms of reason to make the case that He exists.

The weakest form of argument is one based on abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is essentially one’s “best guess” based on what one has observed. The abductive argument for God’s existence essentially says “We can’t identify anything else that is the cause of “everything;” therefore, it must be the being we have defined as God.” Given the nature and scope of traits Judeo-Christianity ascribes to God, along with the myriad things that have been done in His name, an argument for His existence needs to be stronger than a “best guess.” One can hardly consider a “best guess,” that is, not being able to identify a better alternative, as logically sufficient for believing something as grand as God exists. Curiously, however, the best argument for God being – Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument -- happens to be an abductive one.

A better argument would be a robustly developed inductive one. There are several routinely offered inductive arguments in support of God’s existence. The thing with all inductive arguments is that at best, they can only attest to their claim being likely. No inductive argument, no matter its rigor, shows incontrovertibly that the assertion it attempts to prove is so. Therefore, if one is to accept any inductive argument, one must necessarily concur that its premises and conclusion(s) are valid logically, and in turn accept that the likelihood of its conclusion’s verity is more likely than that of any alternative conclusion.

That leaves us with deductive reasoning, also known as “formal arguments.” Of the three forms of reasoning, the only one that can guarantee that one’s conclusion is correct is deductive reasoning. That is not to suggest that every deductive argument is both valid and correct, for many are not; however, were one found that demonstrates God’s existence, it would truly be illogical to deny the existence of God. That said, quite simply, there is no formal argument that proves God’s existence.

Looking at the inductive and abductive arguments asserting that God exists, and since there is no deductive one that makes not adopting such a belief a fool’s game, I assert that the basis for believing in God cannot be fully logical. It cannot be so because each argument advocating God’s existence has at least one huge logical gap.

Counterargument:

Over the centuries, multiple arguments proponing God’s existence have been posited as counterarguments to the outright denial of God’s existence, or more precisely as “proofs” that God exists. The most commonly cited arguments in support of God’s being are:

• The Bible tells me God exists; therefore, He does. (aka, The Bible tells me so) – This argument says, “God is 'all that and a bag of chips."' God inspired various people to write the Bible/Torah. They did as instructed and God didn’t lie to them. They assert that those 'Divinely inspired' books say God exists; therefore, God does exist.”
• The Ontological Argument – Anselmo d'Aosta first introduced this argument. It essentially says that because we can imagine God – the perfect, OPP entity defined in the Bible – existing, He does exist.
• The Moral Argument – This argument says that we observe moral character among humanity and the best explanation for that character’s being is belief in God. Thus belief in God is preferable to denying that He is.
• The Argument of Degrees – First proposed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, syllogistically, this argument – borrowing it seems from mathematics the idea that for any given number, there can be a larger number or a smaller number – goes as follows:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

• The Cosmological Argument – Proposed by both Plato and Aristotle, it is Thomas Aquinas who generally gets credited with this argument. For brevity, as with his preceding argument, it is presented in simple, syllogistic form and adapted to accommodate the Big Bang Theory:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause, and God is that cause.
4. God thus exists.

Although there are other purportedly logical arguments for God’s existence, the preceding ones are those Theists most often proffer, the Cosmological Argument and the Argument of Degrees being the two strongest, rationally speaking. Theists present one or several of these arguments, and insofar as they view the arguments as logically valid, assert that their belief in God’s existence is therefore based on reason

Rebuttal:
Whereas the arguments God apologists present are ostensibly logical, one of them, on even the most puerile level, is not, and several of them have big gaps in their reasoning. Moreover, one can be applied equally well to “prove” things which the slightest bit of common sense shows do not make sense. Lastly, the best of them, the Cosmological Argument, asks one to accept as probable something that is only likely – and that, only by a very long shot given 20th and 21st century scientific discoveries -- because we have yet to find something more likely.

Let us look the logical failings of each of the counterarguments noted above.

• The Bible tells me so – The logical problem with this argument is that it is circular. It is invalid; consequently, it should not be a basis for one’s claiming to have a rational basis for believing God exists.
• The Ontological Argument – This brazen argument fails on at least three fronts. First, its line of reasoning implies that if one can conceive of, say, a perfect lake, or a perfect “anything,” that thing must exist. By implying that if it is logically possible for God to exist, He thus does exist, this line of argument suffers from the bare assertion fallacy for the logic of this argument exists absent one shred of tangible evidence that unquestionably supports it. Second, the argument depends on God’s being perfect, yet, according to the Bible, God made man in his image, and man is far from perfect. Lastly, this argument is circular; syllogistically, it asserts:

1. I can conceive of God being.
2. Therefore God is because I can conceive of Him.

• The Moral Argument – The problem with this argument is not that it is outright invalid, for there is no denying that morality exists among humanity. The problem is morality’s non-universality among humanity, along with it’s not deriving from God’s existence. Consider the Frist Crusade of 1099 wherein Rome’s soldiers murdered thousands of Jews [1]. It is entirely plausible, certain if one accepts Hobbes theory of the social contract [2], that they slaughtered those people due to social mores and exigencies, such as the need for European powers, namely the Roman Catholic Church, to recover its supremacy and to establish political hegemony over the known parts of the planet. Seen from the perspective of the social and political realities of the Middle Ages, one can easily show that God had nothing to do with much of import the Crusaders did, much less with their murders and pillaging. Indeed, given God’s sixth Commandment – thou shalt not murder -- it is very hard credibly, logically, to consider the morality of the Crusaders, and later Judeo-Christian zealots, as being God-caused. If anything, their actions were spurred by an “anti-God,” rather than a God, or perhaps even by a god other the one who issued the 6th Commandment. (In U.S., we say “kill,” but a correct translation of the Ten Commandments from Hebrew shows the term given in the 6th Commandment was “ratsakh,“ which refers only and always to murder, manslaughter and other forms of unjust killings. [3])

• The Argument of Degrees – The rationale of this argument, though it couches itself in logical structure, suffers from the fact that the entity in question is not the next or preceding number in a sequence, but rather God. In consideration of things/entities having more substance than numbers, one need not believe in an object of greater degree to believe in and accept an object of lesser degree. Likewise, the same holds for the preceding statement’s converse. If one encounters the ugliest duckling one has ever seen, that one has does not make it necessary that an even uglier one exists, despite one’s not having seen it. Too, if one finds the smallest star, it is entirely possible that there simply is no smaller star. Ostensibly, God could transform himself into a smaller star, but then God would not be God, He’d be a star, whence after there would then be no God; moreover, God becoming a star would give greater credibility to Astrolatarianism.
• The Cosmological Argument (TCA) – Since time immemorial, it has been self-evident that things cannot and do not come from “no thing.” The problem I see with the logic of TCA is not that it is inherently illogical, but rather that it nowhere establishes that the cause for all we see is in fact God of the Bible; it merely asserts that He, and not something or “someone” else, is the cause. It is here that TCA falls apart as a sufficiently logical basis for believing in God’s existence.
  
  The reader will recall that we examined whether it is possible for there to be more than one God such as the one described in the Bible, and we concluded that it is not. In TCA, however, Aquinas argues that the God of the Bible is the cause of all things. However, what Aquinas overlooks in his argument is the possibility that there are in fact multiple gods, all be they each very powerful and bright, though none of them being an OPP God, and that one or several of them created everything. The problem with TCA is that in “proving” God exists, it discounts the possibility – the argument rests upon the tenets of probability – that there really is not only one God. Might it be instead that there were multiple gods who created everything, but that only one was entrusted to tell the tale of how and that they did so? Might it not be possible, perhaps even probable, given that we envious, avaricious men “made in God’s image,” were told the tale by an equally “fame craving god among several gods” who took all the credit for himself, allowing or leading the Bible writers, and thus us, to believe that he is the OPP God?
  
  Celebrity seeking gods aside, in 2014, TCA suffered another blow when scientists discovered a mathematical proof that shows that something can indeed result from nothing. Professor Dongshan He and his team at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics proved that in a “true vacuum” (the term that describes the state of nothingness), it is possible for “quantum fluctuations” to spontaneously produce a universe. [4] Potentially, therefore, ours is a universe that was so created. This discovery is quite momentous, for although Dr. Dongshan has not demonstrated that our universe did emerge spontaneously from nothing, he has shown that (1) a change in the quantity of energy (presumably – at least to my mind -- not a thing at all) present can result in something coming to exist that before did not exist, and (2) that it is possible for the universe to have been a thing that did so come into existence. Now one might argue that God is that energy that fluxed; however, the God of the Bible is not presented as energy; He’s presented as a being, a “thing,” that is, He is presented as a being having more substance than does energy. In that regard, one must either redefine the being of God, or accept that He doesn’t exist. Either way, there is yet another chink in the armor of TCA; the probability that God – as we presently claim to understand and perceive Him – is the cause has been significantly reduced. What remains now is determining whether our universe was created “from nothing” rather than by God.

Conclusion:

The preceding discussion has shown that among the varied reasons for believing in God, logic doesn’t logically and on its own make sense as a cause for so believing. One will recall that this paper never sought to establish whether God does exist – I do not know if God exists; too, I cannot prove that He does or does not. Instead, I can evaluate whether one’s saying one believes in God because it is logical to do so, because it is logical that He exists, is, well, illogical. The dialectic argument presented herein shows that because each of the logical justifications for believing in God’s existence is flawed, neither collectively nor individually are they logical enough to serve as the sole and purely logical reason(s) for asserting logic is the reason one believes God exists. Succinctly, citing just logic (at least that of the major arguments) as the reason for believing in God’s existence – if only because there is no formal argument for God’s existence -- isn’t sufficient to make logical one’s belief in God’s being, no matter how much reason one attempts to apply or how reasonable be the arguments one offers. Something alongside logic is necessary to enable belief that God exists. For many people, that thing is faith.

So, if not logic, what might militate for one’s having faith that God exists? Emotional contentment is a perfectly fine, plausible and probable reason. What gains might make the emotional satisfaction found in theism “worth it?” Parrying the risk of spiritual damnation is one thing. If God exists as depicted in the Bible, one will be in a “whole heap o’ trouble and dismay,” to use my Southern father’s parlance, if, after passing, one obtains confirmation He exists, and one did not believe in Him. Little is lost by believing in God if it turns out He really does not exist; but much is lost if one did not believe, and He does exist as stated. Furthermore, as there is today no formal way to disprove God’s existence, and given the promises He is said to have made, it is certainly more emotionally calming to “buy into” God existing than it is to believe that when one dies “that’s it.” Additionally, it just feels good to have faith that there is something after the reality we know in life; it feels good to believe that the people whom we knew, loved and lost in life will become known to us again in an afterlife.

So, if there is to be any logic found in believing in God, it is that it is illogical for one to feel emotionally dissatisfied and do nothing about it. If believing in God will effect that change, then by all means, one should believe in God and all that He offers; however, in so doing, one should also realize that it is not the logic of God existing that drives one’s belief in Him.


References
[1] “Crusaders massacre of Jerusalem was done in cold-blood, not religious frenzy, historian argues.” Medievalists.net. January 2011.

[2] Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: With selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Hackett: Cambridge, MA. 1994.

[3] Got Questions.org. “Why is ‘You shall not murder’ in the Ten Commandments?’

[4] Dongshan He, Dongfeng Gao, and Qing-yu Cai. “Spontaneous Creation of the Universe from Nothing.” http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf. Published on Physics Review D, April 2014.

As for the rest, the arguments you cited, I don't consider as proof, nor do I consider really any of them to be strong ones. So I'm staying out of that.

 

[ding]

introduction and assertion

Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

No. It makes sense to accept God's existence based upon the indirect evidence for his existence, our personal experience as creators and reason.

 

[Rambunctious]

Maybe the better question is why not accept Gods existence?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: | Debate Now | Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
※→ ding, et al,

The question implies that there are some sensible argument and difference between:

• Existence based upon the "evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence;" principly considered "indirect evidence."

• Existence based solely on the arguments presented for it ⇒ is more in the realm of theoretical and metaphysical.​

The existence of the Supreme Beings can only be discussed in the realm of a belief system. It cannot be argued in the realm of tangible evidence that can be scientifically analyzed.

It is ∴ possible for the theorist to make use of both the "Belief System" and the "Scientific Method." Neither can prove or disprove the other, neither can have an impact the other.

introduction and assertion

Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

No. It makes sense to accept God's existence based upon the indirect evidence for his existence, our personal experience as creators and reason.

(COMMENT)

Most arguments for "existence" come in the form of either a "testimonial" or a "supernatural" experience.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Damaged Eagle]

RE: | Debate Now | Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
※→ ding, et al,

The question implies that there are some sensible argument and difference between:

• Existence based upon the "evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence;" principly considered "indirect evidence."

• Existence based solely on the arguments presented for it ⇒ is more in the realm of theoretical and metaphysical.​

The existence of the Supreme Beings can only be discussed in the realm of a belief system. It cannot be argued in the realm of tangible evidence that can be scientifically analyzed.

It is ∴ possible for the theorist to make use of both the "Belief System" and the "Scientific Method." Neither can prove or disprove the other, neither can have an impact the other.

introduction and assertion

Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

No. It makes sense to accept God's existence based upon the indirect evidence for his existence, our personal experience as creators and reason.

(COMMENT)

Most arguments for "existence" come in the form of either a "testimonial" or a "supernatural" experience.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's a limited perspective on how to look at God and the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[ding]

RE: | Debate Now | Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
※→ ding, et al,

The question implies that there are some sensible argument and difference between:

• Existence based upon the "evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence;" principly considered "indirect evidence."

• Existence based solely on the arguments presented for it ⇒ is more in the realm of theoretical and metaphysical.​

The existence of the Supreme Beings can only be discussed in the realm of a belief system. It cannot be argued in the realm of tangible evidence that can be scientifically analyzed.

It is ∴ possible for the theorist to make use of both the "Belief System" and the "Scientific Method." Neither can prove or disprove the other, neither can have an impact the other.

introduction and assertion

Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

No. It makes sense to accept God's existence based upon the indirect evidence for his existence, our personal experience as creators and reason.

(COMMENT)

Most arguments for "existence" come in the form of either a "testimonial" or a "supernatural" experience.

Most Respectfully,
R

But it does not make sense to blindly accept knowledge on authority of others. We should always ask ourselves if what they say makes sense. This requires us to make observations and use reason.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

If not, haven't I just won the debate?

 

[ding]

How about if I start with my observations and then tie that back to a belief system? Would that work?

 

[RoccoR]

Debate Now ⇒ Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
※→ ding, et al,

To believe in yourself and your own powers of observational accuracy as evidential support (inductive logic), powers in the process of reason (deductive logic), or your ability at accurately identifying causality (pathologies) is NOT wrong and is NOT a weakness. Nor is the issue of the kind that even considers "right" and "wrong."

It is a matter of inquiry and the best conduct that will give the greatest possibility of an accurate or true result. There are times when there is no absolute answer → and a determination is to be made as to what degree the condition is required to be shaped and reshaped (successive approximation).

In examining the purety of Gold (Au & an Atomic number: 79) Five 9's (99.999% pure) is the absolute closest in today's technology that can be said is pure Gold. There is not realworld difference between Five 9's and 100%; we cannot tell the difference between the two solutions. To say that Gold is 99.9999...% pure is a distinction of no consequence. After Five 9's, no further shaping is required.​

But it does not make sense to blindly accept knowledge on the authority of others. We should always ask ourselves if what they say makes sense. This requires us to make observations and use reason.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

If not, haven't I just won the debate?

(COMMENT)

You say: • "blindly accept knowledge" This is a matter of credibility and past record of performance. If a child gives me the correct answer to a complex question, the fact that it came from a child does not change the fact that it is correct. Blind acceptance is a matter of risk (in the acceptance of the data and not the provider); NOT a matter of truth.

You say: • "if what they say makes sense" This is your first level application of observational accuracy as evidential support as to the knowledge. We still teach Newtonian Mechanics to aspiring minds. We know that Newtonian Mechanic is not quite right, but it works pretty well in most cases on Earth. BUT we have seen the slight errors in Newtonian Mechanics -- and how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (one of the two might be wrong or the mathematics we use is flawed --- or only operate in a limited range) do not mesh together.

You say: • "I just won the debate?" The content of a debate is not the TRUE facet judging a debate. The debate is not about and of the morals or wealth of knowledge. The winner is that one that is popularly picked as being the most valuable after the debate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

Debate Now ⇒ Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
※→ ding, et al,

To believe in yourself and your own powers of observational accuracy as evidential support (inductive logic), powers in the process of reason (deductive logic), or your ability at accurately identifying causality (pathologies) is NOT wrong and is NOT a weakness. Nor is the issue of the kind that even considers "right" and "wrong."

It is a matter of inquiry and the best conduct that will give the greatest possibility of an accurate or true result. There are times when there is no absolute answer → and a determination is to be made as to what degree the condition is required to be shaped and reshaped (successive approximation).

In examining the purety of Gold (Au & an Atomic number: 79) Five 9's (99.999% pure) is the absolute closest in today's technology that can be said is pure Gold. There is not realworld difference between Five 9's and 100%; we cannot tell the difference between the two solutions. To say that Gold is 99.9999...% pure is a distinction of no consequence. After Five 9's, no further shaping is required.​

But it does not make sense to blindly accept knowledge on the authority of others. We should always ask ourselves if what they say makes sense. This requires us to make observations and use reason.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

If not, haven't I just won the debate?

(COMMENT)

You say: • "blindly accept knowledge" This is a matter of credibility and past record of performance. If a child gives me the correct answer to a complex question, the fact that it came from a child does not change the fact that it is correct. Blind acceptance is a matter of risk (in the acceptance of the data and not the provider); NOT a matter of truth.

You say: • "if what they say makes sense" This is your first level application of observational accuracy as evidential support as to the knowledge. We still teach Newtonian Mechanics to aspiring minds. We know that Newtonian Mechanic is not quite right, but it works pretty well in most cases on Earth. BUT we have seen the slight errors in Newtonian Mechanics -- and how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (one of the two might be wrong or the mathematics we use is flawed --- or only operate in a limited range) do not mesh together.

You say: • "I just won the debate?" The content of a debate is not the TRUE facet judging a debate. The debate is not about and of the morals or wealth of knowledge. The winner is that one that is popularly picked as being the most valuable after the debate.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whose argument for God's existence are we debating exactly?

I tried to establish my argument and was rebuffed for doing so.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Debate Now ⇒ APOLOGY
※→ ding, et al,

There was no intention, on my part to rebuff you.

But it does not make sense to blindly accept knowledge on the authority of others. We should always ask ourselves if what they say makes sense. This requires us to make observations and use reason.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

If not, haven't I just won the debate?

Whose argument for God's existence are we debating exactly?

I tried to establish my argument and was rebuffed for doing so.

(APOLOGIES)

Let me extend my sincere apology for what must have been an inappropriate response.

Please excuse me.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 1

1. If God exists then what he has created can be used as evidence.
2. We can use our reason and own experiences as creators as a proxy to understand what that evidence can tell us.
3. Our creations are the realizations of our intentions.
4. Our creations are created for a purpose.
5. Our creations are created in steps.
6. The more complex our creation the more steps required to complete them.
7. The more complex our creations the greater the intelligence required to complete them.
8. The realization of the intention of the creation cannot be fully understood until the finished product is realized.
9. The purpose of our creation can be determined from studying the finished product.

 

[ding]

ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2

1. We know that space and time had a beginning.
2. We know that that beginning followed rules.
3. We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.
4. We know that matter and energy has only changed form since the beginning of space and time.
5. We know that those changes followed rules. The rules which existed before space and time.
6. We know that the universe is full of information.
7. We know that information is the domain of intelligence.
8. We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.
9. We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.
10. We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.
11. We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.
12. We know that the universe became self aware.
13. We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.
14. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Believing God Exists Based on Arguments for His Existence is Illogical”

Correct.

Such arguments fail as either an appeal to authority fallacy or an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a theist cites religious text, doctrine, or dogma from a religious source such as the bible or koran, where such sources are devoid of objective, documented facts.

An appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when a theist uses religious dogma to answer a question that science is still considering; that science may not yet have an explanation for a given question doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
• Posting # 76 | ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
※→ "ding." et al,

In my eyes, each of the assertions held in Posting #76 might deserve at least an entire Chapter in a larger and more comprehensive work. Certainly, a much closer look than I could conjure is deserved.

So, let me just take one for an initial examination.

ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
1. We know that space and time had a beginning.

(COMMENT)

Premise #1 is a variation on a theme; something on the order of those postulated by theologians for centuries (to include St Thomas Aquinas). We do not know whether or not:

• Space had a begininng.
• Time had a beginning.
• Space-Time had a beginning.​

Trapped in the concept of how humanity observers time, we can only go back to approximately 10^(-34) seconds before the prevailing cosmological model of the "Big Bang" (a point which was infinitely hot and infinitely small); or ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion years backwards in time before that means of mathematical examination collapses (the point at which the theory of General Relativity" breaks-down). But we really do not know anything about that which was infinitely hot. Nor do we know if the infinitely small point was the entirety of the universe; since we now believe that we can only detect about 4% to 5% of the content of that portion of the universe known to man. We do not know if anything existed before the "Big Bang."

Premise #1 rests on the model that the universe is NOT timeless: having a definite beginning and end. In the sense that the Argument begins with premises that are actually true; we are unsure.

Remember, that the "Big Bang" refers to only that material in the Universe that humanity can detect and base its observations upon. We cannot say anything about the universe that could have consisted with dark energy and dark matter before the "Big Bang."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
• Posting # 76 | ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
※→ "ding." et al,

In my eyes, each of the assertions held in Posting #76 might deserve at least an entire Chapter in a larger and more comprehensive work. Certainly, a much closer look than I could conjure is deserved.

So, let me just take one for an initial examination.

ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
1. We know that space and time had a beginning.

(COMMENT)

Premise #1 is a variation on a theme; something on the order of those postulated by theologians for centuries (to include St Thomas Aquinas). We do not know whether or not:

• Space had a begininng.
• Time had a beginning.
• Space-Time had a beginning.​

Trapped in the concept of how humanity observers time, we can only go back to approximately 10^(-34) seconds before the prevailing cosmological model of the "Big Bang" (a point which was infinitely hot and infinitely small); or ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion years backwards in time before that means of mathematical examination collapses (the point at which the theory of General Relativity" breaks-down). But we really do not know anything about that which was infinitely hot. Nor do we know if the infinitely small point was the entirety of the universe; since we now believe that we can only detect about 4% to 5% of the content of that portion of the universe known to man. We do not know if anything existed before the "Big Bang."

Premise #1 rests on the model that the universe is NOT timeless: having a definite beginning and end. In the sense that the Argument begins with premises that are actually true; we are unsure.

Remember, that the "Big Bang" refers to only that material in the Universe that humanity can detect and base its observations upon. We cannot say anything about the universe that could have consisted with dark energy and dark matter before the "Big Bang."

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree that each point is deserving of a chapter or more to fully cover it. Unfortunately the nature of this topic can not be proven through a single assertion but through a conglomerate of assertions. It isn't easy to prove the existence of something which is outside of space and time, but I am happy enough to discuss each point with you as you see fit. So, in that vein let me respond to your counterpoint. BTW you will have to excuse me if I don't use the proper debate terminology as I have no formal training in debate.

Before I begin I would like to correct one of the statements you made in your response. The equations of GToR do not breakdown at the singularity, they yield infinities which I believe are an accurate representation of what lies beyond.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. But we know that space and time must have had a beginning because the SLoT states that for every matter to energy and energy to matter exchange there is a corresponding loss of usable energy. So an infinite acting universe (i.e. cyclical model) would eventually reach thermal equilibrium as time approached infinity. This we do not see.

We know from cosmic background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's GToR field equations that ~14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. Every cosmological model honors this point.

The question is how did it get that way.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

In summary, space and time had a beginning and that beginning followed rules and those rule were in place before space time itself.

 

[ding]

In my eyes, each of the assertions held in Posting #76 might deserve at least an entire Chapter in a larger and more comprehensive work. Certainly, a much closer look than I could conjure is deserved.

Maybe it is meant to be a collaborative effort.