Why do you not believe in God?

[Mystic]

1. Everything that begins to exists, except for THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist, has a cause

How does the exception makes sense if what you are doing the exception is not in category of everything that begins to exist.

you really cannot see the question begging? you should see the logic gymnastics that Craig Lane performs on this point. Talk about things that make you go hmmmmmmmm....

Kalam argument is VALID. And has been agreed upon to be VALID. The only dispute is if it's sound.

For example, a person can dispute "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

Or traditionally, "the universe began to exist".

However the argument is not circular and it's valid for sure to say the least, and at it seems to be sound based on intuition and science.

[Welsh cake]

Its remarkable how theists can jabber on about this "god" for so long yet fail to define what "god" is or why anyone should care.

I seem to keep switching positions from atheism to apatheism depending on how unstimulating the arguments are. Debating the existence of "god" is wholly utterly and irrelevant to my life.

[Mystic]

I'm not sure how this helps you in any way, but I'm sure you will impress me with a mindblowing punchline.

You are basically stating the statement

Everything that begins to exist has a cause is circular reasoning. But all it is

A (Has a begining)
B (Has a cause)

A ->B.

You are saying a basic statement like A -> B is circular which makes no sense.

Not B -> Not A can be derived from the statement.

So Not having a cause implies not having a beginning. It's not circular reasoning to assert what doesn't have a cause, doesn't have a beginning either.

[jerNYC]

I really don't want to defend ID because I know very little about it.

ID is actually no different from any other form of Creationism, so if you can defend Creation, you can defend ID.

However, say that you found a machine with buttons, cranks, wheels, all made out of steel with a few hundred screws. I think we both know that you would not even for a moment think that this had come into being purely by chance.

This is the classic watchmaker analogy that Paley proposed in 1802. It has been disproved, yet people continue to use it to this day. The same, false argument is used to attempt to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum, DNA, and the cell. But it's wrong. Darwin proved that complexity can arise in nature without the need for intelligence, so simply saying "god did it because only god can create complexity" or "we can infer an intelligent god from complexity" is wrong (and both arguments are illogical). If you really understand the power of natural selection, it will change the way you think about complexity in nature. (Also, If you want to find out more about the Intelligent Design arguments, google “Kitzmiller v Dover” and read Judge Jones’ decision. He explains it quite well, considering that he’s a devout Christian and a conservative republican Judge)

You might think that complex machinery found on the moon was created by intelligence because you already know that humans are intelligent and capable of producing complex machinery. You then conclude that if humans didn’t manufacture that machinery, it must have been another form of intelligence. This is reasonable. The machinery could have been made by another intelligent civilization whose intelligence evolved in the same way as ours, and whose manufacturing techniques thus resemble our own. This is a deductive argument for “intelligent design.”

However, you as a Christian know that God is intelligent and that He can create complexity in nature as well. But I don’t know that. In order to show me that complexity in nature can arise through God’s handiwork, you would have to explain to me how God designs things, so that I can then look at the artifact and decide whether or not it was designed by God. Any other connection between the artifact and God would be illogical, since I don’t know that your god is actually intelligent or capable of producing complexity in the first place.

The chance that an object appearing to be a human face vs. the chance of an entire machine coming into being by chance would be very different. The latter would be almost zero, while the former would be much different.

Again, I've heard this argument numerous times. It's wrong because complexity does arise in nature, without intelligent means, regardless of how improbable it may be. There is an infinite set of circumstances which we might recognize as being complex. Just yesterday, I saw a license plate that said HZT-3476. Now what are the chances that I would ever see a license plate with this exact letter and number combination?

I am aware of Occam's razor. I think here, if we accepted evolution, all it would show is that God is not necessary to explain how biological complexity came about. However, all that would follow here, I think, is that we cannot infer the existence of God based on biological complexity. However, it doesn't follow that arguments for the existence of God which are not based on biological complexity are
effected.

You tacked God on to a statement about evolution. But you would still need a positive argument for God, instead of just throwing god into the equation because they equation allowed you to do so. It’s like saying 2 + 2 + x = 4 – x

I would challenge you here and ask how we can empirically verify (without circular and invalid logic) the existence of the past or the reliability of our senses.

Science has already figured this out. We establish an objective, universal standard.

What about the Kalaam cosmological argument?

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (the big bang theory)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

This is an argument for the cause of the creation of the universe, not an argument for the existance of god.

Therefore, whatever caused everything to be must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless, and a being of immense power (to cause everything that is). And the latter characteristics are traditional properties of God.

This definition is vague enough to explain anything. See Reason 1 for why I don't believe that gods exist. When we finally figure out the real cause of the creation of the universe, your definition will change.

Good discussion.

[ktulu]

I'm not sure how this helps you in any way, but I'm sure you will impress me with a mindblowing punchline.

You are basically stating the statement

Everything that begins to exist has a cause is circular reasoning. But all it is

A (Has a begining)
B (Has a cause)

A ->B.

You are saying a basic statement like A -> B is circular which makes no sense.

Not B -> Not A can be derived from the statement.

So Not having a cause implies not having a beginning. It's not circular reasoning to assert what doesn't have a cause, doesn't have a beginning either.

Perhaps if I quote a few definitions... question begging:
wiki :
"Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion"

Something can have a beginning without a cause outside of the environment needed for such conditions. If you imply that the environment is the cause, then why god? why not quantum foam?

If your argument is question begging it will be sound within it's constrains. But it will not be valid.

[jerNYC]

I don't really need a reason to justify my disbelief either, but I've heard agnostics say that gods could potentially exist. I just explained why they can't.

I find the strong atheist position to be as logically flawed as any theistic position.

We then differ on how we perceive reality. I understand it by constantly testing rational explanations in my head. This is the only tool I have. (Maybe theists and agnostics possess knowledge that I don't). For me, irrational explanations can never inform my understanding of reality.

---

So there may yet be some evidence to rule gods in or out.

What evidence would rule gods in? In my OP, I demosntrated that no evidence could ever "rule gods in." Therefore, if gods exist, we'll never know about it, unless we figure out another way of understanding reality.

[Mystic]

Ok here is an argument.

What exists, could not pop out of nothing into existence.
Therefore if God exists, he could not have popped out of nothing into existence.

Do you agree this is not circular reasoning?

[CliveStaples]

Perhaps if I quote a few definitions... question begging:
wiki :
"Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion"

Something can have a beginning without a cause outside of the environment needed for such conditions. If you imply that the environment is the cause, then why god? why not quantum foam?

If your argument is question begging it will be sound within it's constrains. But it will not be valid.

But where's the question begging? The KCA doesn't say "Everything begins to exist except for this one thing." It says:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It doesn't assume that the universe had a cause. Since that's the only conclusion here, it can't possibly be begging the question.

[Mystic]

Morality if began to exist would be a delusion.
Morality is not a delusion.
Therefore morality didn't begin to exist.

This an non-circular argument as well. You can dispute premise 1, premise 2, but you can't accept premise 1 and premise 2, then say premise 3 is not true.

[jerNYC]

Perhaps if I quote a few definitions... question begging:
wiki :
"Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion"

Something can have a beginning without a cause outside of the environment needed for such conditions. If you imply that the environment is the cause, then why god? why not quantum foam?

If your argument is question begging it will be sound within it's constrains. But it will not be valid.

But where's the question begging? The KCA doesn't say "Everything begins to exist except for this one thing." It says:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It doesn't assume that the universe had a cause. Since that's the only conclusion here, it can't possibly be begging the question.

I think we can all agree that the argument is sound, but then drawing the conclusion that the God of Christianity exists because the universe had a cause is illogical, unless someone has already proved that God can create universes. Time to move on?