Reasons for God

[solarwave]

Hey,

I am writing this to put forward my reasons for believe in God. I'll start off with more philosophical arguements and move on from there. It will be interesting to see your answers.

Reason 1: The Kalam Cosmological Arguement

Im taking this from William Lane Craig.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existance.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existance.
4. This cause is God (Not necessarly the Christian God)

1) This is quite straight forward and the only reason would deny this is because of quantum theory. Some claim quantum particles come out of nothing for not reason. But this is not the same as the creation of the universe. In the 'nothingness' of space there is a sea of fields and energy and even then energy and matter are conserved not brought into being like the big bang.

2) There must be a beginning of everything that exists because there can't be an actual infinite number of past events (no infinite regress). If there was an infinite number of past events how would we ever get to the present since it would take an infinite amount of time to get here, which doesn't make sense. There would be no real answer to the causes of events since the cause would just be pushed one level back into the infinite never really giving an answer and so not explaining current events.

3) This follows from 1 and 2.

4) So why does this cause have to be God I hear you say. Well it at the least has to be a personal Creator for these reasons: When the universe began space and time began too. This means the cause of the universe is timeless (eternal) and spaceless. "If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator."- Willaim Lane Craig

Solarwave

[Secularone]

Reasons for Believing in God

1. Ancient people needed someone to blame for natural disasters, i.e. hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, Tsunamis, fires, tornadoes, droughts, crop failures, famine, etc.
2. It’s nice to think you are valued, even though everyone else thinks you’re a piece of shit.
3. It’s nice to think you are special, in as much as you have an intimate relationship with the most powerful being in existence and that others may not.
4. It’s nice to think you can ask favors of this being and it will give a damn about what you need.
5. It’s nice to think that when you go to war you’ll have someone looking out for you to make sure you win.
6. It’s nice to think that those who have done you wrong will be punished for their transgressions even though you are powerless to punish them.
7. It’s nice to think that you won’t have to pay for your transgressions even though you are an evil bastard.
8. It’s nice to think that you have a chance to live a happy and prosperous life even though this life has been nothing but shit and with no hope of the situation ever getting better until the day you drop dead.

[Minimalist]

Well it at the least has to be a personal Creator for these reasons:

That's where you go wrong. Your "personal creator" exists because you so desperately want there to be one.

You see, I have no such hang-up. I don't need any sort of "cosmic intelligence" for the universe therefore Neil DeGrasse Tyson's explanation of the Big Bang works fine for me. Shit happens.
Get over it. And your sky-daddy vanishes in a mere blink of an eye as something unneeded.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Causality is a proposition, not a fact.

2) There must be a beginning of everything that exists because there can't be an actual infinite number of past events (no infinite regress)

Another proposition stated as fact.

Logic suggests but does not guarantee truth.

I know nothing of quantum physics.My lack of belief is connected directly to lack of proof. I'm perfectly willing to change my position immediately I see some proof. Since no one has managed this in recorded history, I'm not holding my breath.

Apologist sophistry won't do it.

[theVOID]

Weak Apologist

[Edwardo Piet]

'4)' does not follow.

William Lane Craig fails to explain, as he always does, how the first cause has to be caused by an intelligent creator. It doesn't need to be reasoned out - I mean, how does it? - whatever causes the universe in the first place, could just as easily be caused without a consciousness intending it, can it not?

Where does Craig actually evidence that a conscious intelligence has to be the first cause? IOW: Where does he prove that it cannot be done without a conscious intelligence, or a consciousness at all?

EvF

[ecolox]

William Lane Craig fails to explain, as he always does, how the first cause has to be caused by an intelligent creator.

Humans have conscious intelligence. Can that just happen?

The universe is governed by unseen, intelligible constraints. If the universe makes sense then can't we assume it had an intelligent source? One that is inline/compatible with our own intelligence.

For example: If you discovered (for the first time) the works of Shakespeare in the wild, isn't it fairly safe to assume they were produced by intelligence since they are so intelligible? Or perhaps one of the infinite monkeys typed it out by accident? I don't know, just tell me how this is wrong.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Humans have conscious intelligence. Can that just happen?

I'm not even sure I understand the question or its relevance. My lack of belief is a metaphysical issue,not cosmology. (origins of the universe) or biology (evolution and sentience)

I assert only "I do not believe". I make no claims,so have no burden of proof. That honour is yours 100%. I need explain nothing,

I'm quite comfy with saying "I don't know" when that is the case,as it is more often than not..


I am not comfy with the god of the gaps explanation for anything.It's an argument from incredulity. It goes like this " I don't know or understand X. I'm too ignorant,unimaginative,lazy or stupid to think of an answer and too bloody minded and fearful to say "I don't know",so therefore god did it."

[ecolox]

Humans have conscious intelligence. Can that just happen?

I'm not even sure I understand the question or its relevance. My lack of belief is a metaphysical issue,not cosmology. (origins of the universe) or biology (evolution and sentience)

So humans are [basically] the product of one lucky monkey (out of infinity) or they were created by something that could at least imagine all the human dimensions.

I would think that our existence is most probably designed. An accident is too improbable to expect.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So humans are [basically] the product of one lucky monkey (out of infinity) or they were created by something that could at least imagine all the human dimensions.

False dichotomy; I said no such thing, neither does the theory of evolution.Neither are those two options the only two. EG mainstream Christianity accepts evolution,but insists on a divine first cause.It's only the lunar religious right which remains in a state of denial about evolution. (Most,like you show no signs of actually having read Darwin)

I would think that our existence is most probably designed. An accident is too improbable to expect.

"Argument from incredulity" one of the most common logical fallacies used by apologists.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity