A reasonable argument for God? (believer, history, mission, hate)

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

[...]
...If I were to theorize that an as-yet undiscovered [natural] small blue fish lives near the bottom of the ocean, we should properly be agnostic to that idea until we find evidence one way or the other. But we should not be agnostic to the idea of a [magical] leprachaun because he would violate known laws of physics.

The general premise being, if a claim is fundementally at odds with the known laws of physics our default position should be disbelief until atleast we've seen such compelling evidence to change our minds. If you accept that premise, we can then move on to whether or not there is such compelling evidence before us.

That would make you a physicalist, and since Physics is as much a philosophy (theories) as a recognized science (observations) it likely produces better and more consistent explanations, and more accurate and precise predictions, than the various forms of theism, mainly Religion.

What you are saying is that God can't exist because God isn't a physical being; and would thus be incoherent and/or only symbolic or imaginary.

What KingDavid is saying is that the multi-verse theory is less reasonable (because of infinite regress or moving the goal post)* than Intelligent Design (which may merely appeal to pathos and a reasonable extra-assumption)*... I'm unsure yet as to whether he believes in current Physics.

*my interjections; KingDavid was actually using appeals to low odds and his common-sense(pathos, ethos, logos).

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The laws of conservation explicitly apply to matter that both does exist and matter that does not exist.

We seem to be going back and forth on this, but you also have to keep in mind that the law of conservation applies only to a closed system. Considering that God, if He exists, is a force outside of our physical universe, rather than a being within our universe, He would not be bound by laws that are exclusive to that which is in our universe. The same way that if a traveler from another universe were to enter our universe, he would be adding matter (himself) to it. Yet it wouldn't be a violation of the law of conservation.

As to Leprachuans, I think it most go further than that. If I were to theorize that an as-yet undiscovered small blue fish lives near the bottom of the ocean, we should properly be agnostic to that idea until we find evidence one way or the other. But we should not be agnostic to the idea of a leprachaun because he would violate known laws of physics.

God's existence doesn't violate any known laws of physics.

The general premise being, if a claim is fundementally at odds with the known laws of physics our default position should be disbelief until atleast we've seen such compelling evidence to change our minds. If you accept that premise, we can then move on to whether or not there is such compelling evidence before us.

First you have to show that God's existence is at odds with the known laws of physics. It's not.

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

King David8, what evidence are you prepared to exhibit in defense of your argument for the existence of god? I ask this because you appear to be making an argument that god created the universe but have presented no evidence that god actually exists in order to create the universe in the first place.

You might want to go back to my first post. I think it's on page 31.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

God's existence doesn't violate any known laws of physics.

I'm with you because the same goes for leprechauns and unicorns!

[LuminousTruth]

Lets go over some of the laws of physics:
Can God Violate the Laws of Physics?
I especially find the comment "the transitional period ended" hilarious.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Hi, all. I'm showing up a bit late for this party, but wanted to put in the reason I believe in God, which I think is a pretty reasonable argument. I haven't read the entire thread, so it's possible someone's already argued something like this. If so, my apologies.

We live in a universe in which life not only exists, but is apparently inevitable, and can be sustained for billions of years. A universe created by random, unguided means would almost certainly not be like this. That's not to say it couldn't be like this, just that it's unlikely.

Now if (as many believe) there are multiple, or even infinite, universes, then this does increase the chances of one of the universes being able to create and sustain life. Atheists argue that since life must exist and thrive in at least one of them, and we live in a universe in which life exists and thrives, then, obviously, we must be in one of them in which life exists and thrives. That seems reasonable on the surface, but it's actually based on an assumption of no God existing. It doesn't disprove God's existence, but merely argues that it's possible that He doesn't. Which, yes, is possible, but it still doesn't make God's non-existence more likely than his existence.

Think of it this way: Suppose I were to tell you that everything written in this post wasn't actually written by me, but was written by my cat as it walked across my keyboard repeatedly, hitting letters at random. Now, if we have infinite universes, then we must also have infinite cats walking across infinite keyboards, meaning that, in one of the universes, a cut MUST have walked across a keyboard, creating these exact words, in at least one of them.

So does this mean that anyone here accepts that my cat walking across my keyboard hitting letters at random is a BETTER explanation for this post's existence than me having purposely typed these words out? Does the fact that it had to have happened in at least one universe, somehow make it the more likely explanation?

To me, accepting that this text was written by my cat repeatedly walking across the keyboard is a little like accepting that the universe and, ultimately, all life in it, was created by random, unguided forces. Or, going back to the OP, that the phrase "To be or not to be that is the question" written in scrabble tiles on a lawn was the result of someone randomly tossing the tiles into the air as opposed to somebody purposely arranging them in that order. Not impossible, for sure, but it's certainly not the most likely explanation when we're looking at the results, which is all we are doing.

If something APPEARS to be quite purposeful, it makes more sense to accept that it IS purposeful than that it isn't. The fact that it could, hypothetically, be purposeless doesn't mean that we should accept that it was purposeless.

I found your argument. This argument, which appears to be based on the fine tuned universe argument, says, simply, that the universe is so fine tuned for life that there must be a creator responsible for it.

First of all, I take exception to the notion that the universe is fine-tuned for life. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the universe is utterly hostile to all forms of life. This would not be the case if the universe were indeed finely tuned for life. Secondly, the life that we know exists (right here on Earth) is so utterly dependant on a very narrow range of physical parameters that so far have only been found here on Earth (but undoubtedly will eventually be found elsewhere) that it is a wonder that life ever came about here in the first place.

As for purposes, when we look at life here on Earth, going back as far as we are able, what we see is that the purpose of life is to procreate more life. The purpose is for our genes to survive to the next generation, and thus continue the great chain of life. Every lifeform on this planet is involved in this singular activity. It is one of life's defining characteristics. Nearly everything else supports this singular purpose, and anything after that is merely gravy.

As for the notion that the universe, and all life was created by random forces, I shouldn't have to remind you or anyone that the laws of physics are not random, and neither is natural selection. So that argument is actually a strawman argument.

And finally, even if the universe was finely tuned for life, that in itself is not evidence that god exists. What's worse, the religious expression "god did it" doesn't actually explain anything, and is not scientific.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

We seem to be going back and forth on this, but you also have to keep in mind that the law of conservation applies only to a closed system. Considering that God, if He exists, is a force outside of our physical universe, rather than a being within our universe, He would not be bound by laws that are exclusive to that which is in our universe. The same way that if a traveler from another universe were to enter our universe, he would be adding matter (himself) to it. Yet it wouldn't be a violation of the law of conservation.



God's existence doesn't violate any known laws of physics.



First you have to show that God's existence is at odds with the known laws of physics. It's not.

We seem to have gone from a reasonable argument for God to some hopeful excuses as to why not God. One could say that, since God is everything, the system within which it is working must be a closed one. It is only a non - god creation system which could draw on a system outside itself so as not to violate the 2nd law.

How about the existence of a being which is fully developed, intelligent and able to do stuff is contrary to physical laws about nothing coming from nothing?

What is going on is looking for anything that tends to be evidence against the feasible existence of a god and say 'well he is outside' that.

This is all very well, but the reasons to postulate such a creative deity, let alone believe it for a fact begin to look a second - best option over the materialist theory. The reason why is because, while the latter doesn't explain everything, the former doesn't explain anything. God 'did it'. By some unexplained act of will which appears to be miraculous (magic) and doesn't need to have a mechanism.

This is just an evasion of the question, not an answering of it. So can you see why none of this adds up to a reasonable argument for God? It is rather more desperate excuses for God.

[Blue Hue]

No matter which way you flip it, something is responsible. The question is what is that something....we will never know scientifically. Everything points to a possibility of another universe , another dimension....just yesterday I read that scientists over in Europe have discovered supportable and reliable evidence of guess what?
Particles traveling at quite a bit more than the speed of light check it out...if true it is stated that physics has a big job ahead re-writing all the equations
Time travel is discussed...the more we probe, the more trouble there is pinning everything down..are flying saucer sightings actually future man dinkering around with time

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Blue Hue

No matter which way you flip it, something is responsible. The question is what is that something....we will never know scientifically. Everything points to a possibility of another universe , another dimension....just yesterday I read that scientists over in Europe have discovered supportable and reliable evidence of guess what?
Particles traveling at quite a bit more than the speed of light check it out...if true it is stated that physics has a big job ahead re-writing all the equations
Time travel is discussed...the more we probe, the more trouble there is pinning everything down..are flying saucer sightings actually future man dinkering around with time

I quite agree. The bottom line here is not whose theory is supported by the facts but that, since we know so little about the start of the universe, no - one can can make definite or definitive pronouncements about it. The knock on from this is that the materialist view (apart from having the support of what we can be pretty sure of) doesn't need to have a theory to believe in as a support for some other, wider, belief. The basis of science doesn't depend upon the universe having come naturally out of no-where.

Theist belief, on the other hand (Deist or religious) does depend on making a good case for 'god' or there is no basis for belief. It is at least encouraging that I rarely get Bible or belly -butterflies used to 'prove' First cause, theists know that an a priori creator is the needful basis for all other theist arguments which are all based on the assumption of some kind of creative mind as a given. Without that the Bible doesn't really stand up and the theology is speculations about myth.

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

I found your argument. This argument, which appears to be based on the fine tuned universe argument, says, simply, that the universe is so fine tuned for life that there must be a creator responsible for it.

No, that wasn't my argument at all. I acknowledge that it COULD have been naturally created, just that it's unlikely.

First of all, I take exception to the notion that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Yet most scientists agree that there must be life elsewhere in the universe, since our universe's state makes it pretty much inevitable for life to exist and thrive.

The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the universe is utterly hostile to all forms of life.

Just as lotteries are set up that most people won't win. But they're also set up to guarantee that someone will win now and then. Our universe is the same way.

Secondly, the life that we know exists (right here on Earth) is so utterly dependant on a very narrow range of physical parameters that so far have only been found here on Earth (but undoubtedly will eventually be found elsewhere) that it is a wonder that life ever came about here in the first place.

Huh? You think it's a wonder that life ever came about in the first place, but agree that "undoubtedly" life exists elsewhere. If it's pretty much guaranteed to happen somewhere, then it can't be a "wonder" that it's happened.

As for purposes, when we look at life here on Earth, going back as far as we are able, what we see is that the purpose of life is to procreate more life.

I agree. And the universe makes it so that this can happen here, and can also happen elsewhere. I just find it unlikely (though not impossible) that this happened by natural means only.

As for the notion that the universe, and all life was created by random forces, I shouldn't have to remind you or anyone that the laws of physics are not random, and neither is natural selection.

Correct. There is order to the laws of physics, which promote order in the universe itself. But who do many of the laws of physics promote order? Just because they do? Or because they're supposed to?

And finally, even if the universe was finely tuned for life, that in itself is not evidence that god exists.

No, but it does explain why the universe promoted the creation and sustaining of life, which the naturalist arguments do not. Personally, I favor theories that explain the evidence over theories that say "it just happened that way".