comments on "Top 10 arguments for the existence of god"

[Johann1901]

Oh...and a last note. Do we as atheists have a world view that requires deconstruction? Are we being categorized into modern discourse as an ideology? If tbis be so, then I shall consider myself to have been educated on the subject.

However, it is the theist who has a view of the world, and within most doctrines this view is an apolyptical one. Furthermore, as is the case with those who choose to be of simple mind, the world view is based on the Mithraic tradition of there being a good and an evil god. Without an adversary, religion would be of no use to itself. We already know that as a philosophy, it is practically useless. As a moral compass, it is as decrepid and corrupt as a South American politician. It is, in effect, a very simplistic view of the world, uncomplicated and unfettered with logic and rationale.

What fascinates me is how far beyond the boundaries of prescriptive literature the theists have moved. The obvious intellect of some of the people who write on these forums seem wasted when attempting to remain within the guidelines of scripture. This in itself is an implicit admission to the ridiculous nature of religious fairy tales as told in the many books. There is no authority in the bible, the talmud or the koran (I see no need to capitalize fairy tales) that allows for intelligence to be utilized in order to pry some hidden meaning from within the words. The implication is that such "hidden" meanings are the result of inspired writings on the part of simple men who thought the earth was flat, once again without a single thread of proof that this is the case.

Anyways, it makes for interesting and educational reading, and I must congratulate all who contribute here. You guys write really well, and I enjoy reading what you have to say. I may not agree with all of it, but I by no means know enough to point out errors. The fact that you employ logic and reason is enough to make your stuff worth studying.

Peace

[magnifyjehovah]

Hello everyone. A brief intro. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and (as I'm sure you are all aware by that information) I believe in God. I am also a member of Mensa, and a computer scientist, and an artist - so I value knowledge, personal education, logic, and creative pursuits. But I want to engage you in some unbiased Q&A. Mostly for my own curiosity. I have no desire to argue.

I read over all the arguments, and am curious about a few things. I'll start simply.

That last argument - Nothing comes from nothing - Argument from Design - you ask 'Who created God?' Well, what if I said I don't know? What if I acknowledge to you that someone must have created God by that same logic? Does that mean then that there was a God that made this universe? But that someone else made him? It seems most people simply stop short of this.

I guess what I am asking is -

1. Did the universe come from nothing?
2. If it did, how?
3. If it didn't, then from whom or what did it come?
4. If what, then what made the what? And so on?
5. If whom, then would this certain someone not fit the definition of God?

I greatly appreciate your answers.

[Ryvius]

Hello everyone. A brief intro. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and (as I'm sure you are all aware by that information) I believe in God. I am also a member of Mensa, and a computer scientist, and an artist - so I value knowledge, personal education, logic, and creative pursuits. But I want to engage you in some unbiased Q&A. Mostly for my own curiosity. I have no desire to argue.

I read over all the arguments, and am curious about a few things. I'll start simply.

That last argument - Nothing comes from nothing - Argument from Design - you ask 'Who created God?' Well, what if I said I don't know? What if I acknowledge to you that someone must have created God by that same logic? Does that mean then that there was a God that made this universe? But that someone else made him? It seems most people simply stop short of this.

I guess what I am asking is -

1. Did the universe come from nothing?
2. If it did, how?
3. If it didn't, then from whom or what did it come?
4. If what, then what made the what? And so on?
5. If whom, then would this certain someone not fit the definition of God?

I greatly appreciate your answers.

1. We don't know, or rather I don't know.
2. We know particles can suddenly appear without any known cause. Study quantum mechanics.
3/4. It's rather difficult to gather evidence on something that happened over 13 billion years ago, especially in this case. Two good choices are admitting you don't know and leaving it at that, and admitting you don't know and actually look for answers. A very bad alternative is to claim you know for a fact a story about it all happening by magic is true or getting cornered and claiming God did it.
5. How did we get to Jehovah God, specifically? One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. To reject it because of that, though, would be to retreat into the argument from incredulity.

[magnifyjehovah]

Thank you for your answers. They were mostly non-insulting except the part where you say "happening by magic". I don't believe in magic. I do personally believe that God has power beyond human comprehension - much like an alien race thousands or millions of years more advanced than us might be. There is a huge difference. So, I'd appreciate it if you would not use terminologies such as "magic", "folklore", etc. That is not what we are discussing here. With that out of the way...

1. Even though you don't know, we can theorize can't we? And any theory is acceptable is it not? Since we have no provable theory yet, correct? But I get your answer - you don't know. And I respect that. I however, have never seen a single thing come from nothing. So I must theorize, based on that information, that the universe must have come from something, not nothing.

2. Quantum mechanics still suggests a "something" exists. Particles at the quantum level are still "something". After all, have you ever seen anything in your entire life which came from nothing? Or did everything have a source? Trees? Birds? Rocks? You? Houses? Cars? Bacteria? Have you ever seen any of these come from nothing?
2a. Curious - can you provide me with real evidence that particles have appeared from nothing? Are there any studies/experiments I can read about? Or see? Not theories, actual events mind you.

3/4. Two good choices for YOU are to leave it at that or look for answers. I acknowledge then that you don't know if God exists or not by your answer. But, for me, my reasoning (and yes - my search for answers over many years) has led me to believe that he does. I am not trying to force you to believe that, just want you to understand that your choices do not force mine to be the same. I would ask you - when does one stop looking? Who decides when the answers he or she has found are good enough to be true to him or her?

5. That is a deep question, requiring a great length of conversation, for some it takes years or their entire lives to answer! Don't expect me to give you that answer in a few sentences on a forum. Your comment that the stuff cosmologists deal with is hard to understand seems to suggest that some people are just too dumb to realize cosmologists have disproven God - is that what you're saying? I've read alot of stuff about cosomology in my life, as well as biology, evolution, archaeology, physics, philosophy, etc., but I've yet to see anything that can remotely disprove God or for that matter prove a universe which created itself. What am I rejecting specifically - the claim that there is no God? Or the evidence to prove it? But that is besides the point, and my line of questions still stands,

If the universe did not come from nothing (and all evidence suggests (a priori) this is true), then is it not reasonable to assume it came from a creator? Someone beyond human power? And if so, could that person fit the definition of God? To be clear - I am not asking if you believe in God, I just want to know if you think he is possible by answering these questions. Regardless if said 'God' did or did not also have a creator. Whether you can comprehend a person with that much power or not is irrelevant.

Again, thank you for your time.

[magnifyjehovah]

Sorry - i mean 'a posteriori' in regards to everything having a source (not a priori). It seems that, by our collective human experience, we have never seen anything come from nothing.

[Ryvius]

1. Even though you don't know, we can theorize can't we? And any theory is acceptable is it not? Since we have no provable theory yet, correct? But I get your answer - you don't know. And I respect that. I however, have never seen a single thing come from nothing. So I must theorize, based on that information, that the universe must have come from something, not nothing.

There's no such thing as "provable theory". Science deals with evidence. Math deals with proof. Don't confuse the two. For a hypothesis to become a theory, it must be backed by all the evidence.

We know humans didn't pop into existence, plant life didn't predate non-plant-life, and evolution makes no Gods necessary, means the whole "no death before sin" is ridiculous, points to an incredibly sadistic God if one exists, causing almost all species to die out before mankind exists, and, oh, means Jesus is wrong when referring to the creation myth.

2. Quantum mechanics still suggests a "something" exists. Particles at the quantum level are still "something". After all, have you ever seen anything in your entire life which came from nothing? Or did everything have a source? Trees? Birds? Rocks? You? Houses? Cars? Bacteria? Have you ever seen any of these come from nothing?
2a. Curious - can you provide me with real evidence that particles have appeared from nothing? Are there any studies/experiments I can read about? Or see? Not theories, actual events mind you.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9747

Could this answer your claim?

If you've read all that and still aren't convinced, it means you've read it after already deciding it's wrong. In which case you wasted your time.

3/4. Two good choices for YOU are to leave it at that or look for answers. I acknowledge then that you don't know if God exists or not by your answer. But, for me, my reasoning (and yes - my search for answers over many years) has led me to believe that he does. I am not trying to force you to believe that, just want you to understand that your choices do not force mine to be the same. I would ask you - when does one stop looking? Who decides when the answers he or she has found are good enough to be true to him or her?

If all the evidence fits and there are no alternate explanations, that's a great place to stop, but not looking and declaring an ancient story is the answer without any evidence is stupid and intellectually dishonest.

5. That is a deep question, requiring a great length of conversation, for some it takes years or their entire lives to answer! Don't expect me to give you that answer in a few sentences on a forum. Your comment that the stuff cosmologists deal with is hard to understand seems to suggest that some people are just too dumb to realize cosmologists have disproven God - is that what you're saying? I've read alot of stuff about cosomology in my life, as well as biology, evolution, archaeology, physics, philosophy, etc., but I've yet to see anything that can remotely disprove God or for that matter prove a universe which created itself. What am I rejecting specifically - the claim that there is no God? Or the evidence to prove it? But that is besides the point, and my line of questions still stands,

If the universe did not come from nothing (and all evidence suggests (a priori) this is true), then is it not reasonable to assume it came from a creator? Someone beyond human power? And if so, could that person fit the definition of God? To be clear - I am not asking if you believe in God, I just want to know if you think he is possible by answering these questions. Regardless if said 'God' did or did not also have a creator. Whether you can comprehend a person with that much power or not is irrelevant.

Again, thank you for your time.

I don't believe those theories have anything to do with proving or disproving God. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, however, evolution and the Christian creation myth are mutually exclusive.

From the currently malfunctioned evowiki page: "Something can't come from nothing" doesn't have an empirical basis, since we don't have any experience with literally nothing (meaning, not even time and space), and therefore don't know how it behaves. Our current physics describes what we observe within the universe: no one knows if it can be meaningfully applied to the universe itself. In fact, everything we know comes from observations and studies conducted within the known universe. Applying that knowledge to things outside of that context (for instance, applying them to the universe itself) is logically illegitimate."

[pile]

Thank you for your answers. They were mostly non-insulting except the part where you say "happening by magic". I don't believe in magic. I do personally believe that God has power beyond human comprehension - much like an alien race thousands or millions of years more advanced than us might be. There is a huge difference. So, I'd appreciate it if you would not use terminologies such as "magic", "folklore", etc. That is not what we are discussing here. With that out of the way...

The paragraph above beautifully illustrates why it is so hard to have a rational conversation with theists.

First and foremost, you desire to set a certain tone of reverence and "respect" for your beliefs, around which you have arbitrarily decided "acceptable discourse" will ensue, and you've chastised a thoughtful responder on one account because he didn't pander to those sensibilities. You are offended by a reference to the word "magic" because you have decided (and not necessarily anyone else here agrees) that magic and religious claims and miracles are completely separate in nature. That remains to be seen, but you've already corrupted the conversation with irrational, unproven presuppositions.

Second is the notion of "respect" for your beliefs. You're only willing to debate unless great care is taken to pander to your personal sensibilities. That is the de-facto sign of closed-mindedness: being offended by a contrary opinion unless said opinion carefully tip-toes around your personal feelings. None of that belongs in the debate arena.

This is not the way science works. No matter how much a scientist has invested in his theories or beliefs, in order to be a good scientist; in order to arrive at what is "truth", one must be willing to admit they are wrong. This is the difference between us. You are unwilling to entertain the possibility you could be wrong, which is why you demand your beliefs be "respected".

It's a double standard. It is an incomplete deck of cards going into the beginning of the game.

[Ryvius]

I've read alot of stuff about cosomology in my life, as well as biology, evolution, archaeology, physics, philosophy, etc., but I've yet to see anything that can remotely disprove God or for that matter prove a universe which created itself.

Meant to say "studies and theories", than just theories.

[shadfurman]

Couple of things before I lay down my argument for why the theory of God is valid.

1. These are NOT the 10 best arguments for the existence of God, in fact I only consider two of them remotely valid myself. These arguments are what I would stereotype coming out of the mouth of a toothless person living in a shack making moonshine out back.

2. Personal experience is a valid data metric and is used by many scientific fields. The entire field of psychology was based nearly entirely on personal experience and speculation for decades and is still a pivotal resource for data.

3. A statistical significant quantity of data (i.e. The vast majority of the world believes in God.) while not "indisputable" evidence is still evidence and therefore valid in formulating a premise.

3. The scientific method is not the only method for validating a hypothesis. There are many fields of research where conducting experiments are impractical or out right impossible and persons conducting research must rely on methods of interpretation such as hermeneutics.

I do not make any claims to this being the end all of arguments for the existence of God. Personally I have doubts to the existence of God, but feel that the existence of God is more probable than the lack of a God.

The God I believe is most probable has significantly higher intelligence and is able to manipulate matter and create self aware living creatures. This God is very similar in its processing of stimuli to create its perceived emotion. I argue that there is little value in a perpetual chemical reaction to a self aware creature, being similar in emotional response and we value emotion happiness, one of the highest motivations of this God is happiness. (happiness is not glee or joviality)
It is not the purpose of my argument to defend the definition of this God, I am merely supplying an illustration of God I feel further compliments my arguments for clarities sake.

I also make the blatant assumption that if our conscience exists after our death then there is a God. As this two are often contested in parallel I will not argue that here. That is a separate distinction for another argument.

I am going to assume the premise than on an infinite timeline, "anything that can happen, will happen", I don't know who said that but the math says thats true.

There are only two possible outcomes for the future existence of human kind.
1. At some point we go extinct.
2. We never go extinct.

Presuming no God: When all mankind goes extinct, all history, data, action and memory will be lost for all eternity. (until due to probability it is recreated)
With no God all of morality must be defined within secular terms, generally values to perpetuate a set of emotions or our existence, however if all mankind is will cease to exist then all of morality is in vain as we are only complex chemical reactions formulated by the laws of nature to perpetuate our existence. Morality is only a method, design of nature, to better protect our perpetuation. There is no more or less value in the slaughter of millions of human beings, this debate, or the loss of unity between particles of an asteroid at high velocity as it smacks into some distance moon. All science and achievement will be lost along with any record of whether or not you believed in God. The only morality that can exist here is the morality that most efficiently continues the existence of life.

The other option is we do not go extinct. We perpetuate forever, ignoring the probabilities of math. Given a sufficient time to progress, we will master our universe therefore eliminating the probability of extinction. We will perfect systems of science and politics. We will come to fully understand the effect of thoughts and actions on our mood. This may not be a linear progress, in fact it is likely we will have periods of sever intellectual and possibly physical regression. But according to the laws of probability, if we do not all die, we will evolve (and if it is possible, devolve). At some point we will reach a state of complexity that we understand all the laws of the universe (if it is possible) and all the other universes. We will not have war, due to ever expanding real-estate, war will not be beneficial to evolution and we will remove it from our disposition. We will even conquer life. At this point... do we not meet my definition of God?

I make no claims to the origins of God or lack thereof!
I see two, probabilities. (perhaps someone will show me more) Either there is no morality, or the existence of God is probable.

If the Universe/multiverse/or whatever we reside in is infinite in time and space. If it's possible for a life to come into existence due to the laws of nature. If it is possible for life to evolve to form conciseness. If it possible for that life to conquer matter, life possibly even space and time. Then probability states that life DOES exist.

Whether or not there is a life that created US and calls its self God, well thats another matter for probability.

[Whyte]

2. Personal experience is a valid data metric and is used by many scientific fields. The entire field of psychology was based nearly entirely on personal experience and speculation for decades and is still a pivotal resource for data.

What personal experiences count? Just because someone attributes something to God, it doesn't count as proof of God.

3. A statistical significant quantity of data (i.e. The vast majority of the world believes in God.) while not "indisputable" evidence is still evidence and therefore valid in formulating a premise.

Sure you can use that in your premise, but you can't conclude "God exists" from it.

Presuming no God: When all mankind goes extinct, all history, data, action and memory will be lost for all eternity. (until due to probability it is recreated)
With no God all of morality must be defined within secular terms, generally values to perpetuate a set of emotions or our existence, however if all mankind is will cease to exist then all of morality is in vain as we are only complex chemical reactions formulated by the laws of nature to perpetuate our existence. Morality is only a method, design of nature, to better protect our perpetuation. There is no more or less value in the slaughter of millions of human beings, this debate, or the loss of unity between particles of an asteroid at high velocity as it smacks into some distance moon. All science and achievement will be lost along with any record of whether or not you believed in God. The only morality that can exist here is the morality that most efficiently continues the existence of life.

Better that morality than biblical morality.

The other option is we do not go extinct. We perpetuate forever, ignoring the probabilities of math. Given a sufficient time to progress, we will master our universe therefore eliminating the probability of extinction. We will perfect systems of science and politics. We will come to fully understand the effect of thoughts and actions on our mood. This may not be a linear progress, in fact it is likely we will have periods of sever intellectual and possibly physical regression. But according to the laws of probability, if we do not all die, we will evolve (and if it is possible, devolve). At some point we will reach a state of complexity that we understand all the laws of the universe (if it is possible) and all the other universes. We will not have war, due to ever expanding real-estate, war will not be beneficial to evolution and we will remove it from our disposition. We will even conquer life. At this point... do we not meet my definition of God?

You forgot curing cancer and time travel.

I make no claims to the origins of God or lack thereof!
I see two, probabilities. (perhaps someone will show me more) Either there is no morality, or the existence of God is probable.

How about: there is morality and the existence of God is improbable? Morality is not incompatible with a finite existence.

If the Universe/multiverse/or whatever we reside in is infinite in time and space. If it's possible for a life to come into existence due to the laws of nature. If it is possible for life to evolve to form conciseness. If it possible for that life to conquer matter, life possibly even space and time. Then probability states that life DOES exist.

Paraphrase: If life exists then life probably exists.
What are you getting at with this?