God Exists

[brokenreflector]

Actually it is you who has failed to prove that your God exists.

First, very few things can be “proved.” Proofs are in mathematics.

You couldn't “prove” to me that the universe wasn't made five minutes ago with the appearance of being 13.8 billion years old, for instance.

What I'm doing instead is analyzing the possible explanations for the origin of all things using contemporary scientific evidence and reason. I see only two possible explanations. One is logically incoherent. The other one is logically incoherent if atheism is true. Therefore, one must either abandon atheism or choose a logically incoherent explanation for the origin of all things.

Even at the best outcome for you that God created the universe, it tells us nothing in particular about this alleged god-being.

That's plainly false. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be non-physical and space-less. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be at least powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe like ours. A being who created space-time would need to be timeless. Finally, the finitude of the universe suggests that the being chose to create it; otherwise, the effect (the universe) would have been past-eternal like its cause is.

There is certainly nothing about Christian theology in the argument

Big true. But didn't I say that right in the beginning of my post?

this god could exist but yet be the Muslim god or one of the Hindu gods or a Greek or Norse or Native American or any other god

No, not any “god.” Just the definitions of God that include the properties described up above.

In fact, it does not even insist that this god exists now but that it existed at the beginning. It does not prove there is a god today, and nor can it prove there is a god like the Theists, let alone the Christians, envision.

If the God described above exists, then theism is true and atheism is false. The next question should be did God reveal Himself to His creation?

To make matters even worse for you are advances in our scientific understanding of the world have thrown the very notion of cause into question.

No it hasn't. And if it has, not in the way you think. If cause and effect were really abandoned, then that would render science impossible. Ironically, the abandonment of cause and effect would point us to the inexplicable, magical, or supernatural. I thought you were against these types of things?

Particularly the discovery of the quantum nature of subatomic reality has substituted a statistical probability view of events for the old familiar deterministic or 'causal' one.

The Bible does teach us that we have free will, so I wouldn't be surprised. Also, I'm not sure why you're equivocating determinism with causality. Imagine a random number generator and each number represents a cause and each one of these causes has its own effect. Now imagine this underlying all of reality. There, I've married causality with indeterminism. I could also say that this randomness is only apparently random in the same way a random number generator is inside a computer. Random number generators are not truly random because they all have underlying algorithms. The same may be true about quantum mechanics. Regardless, I don't see how any of this refutes the main points in my original post.

ln other words, where it has been traditionally argued that some prior condition A is necessary and sufficient for (the 'cause' of) event B

Actually, when A is the cause of B that means A is sufficient for B and B is necessary.

Moving on...

As physicist Victor Stenger has stated, "In the quantum world ... things can simply happen ... I have shown that directional causality, or causal precedence, is in fact a classical, macroscopic concept that does not apply at the fundamental level of elementary particle interactions, where fundamental interactions make no distinction between cause and effect". In such a view of reality, a 'cause' is neither always adequate to explain an event — even the big event.

First of all, Victor Stenger is an atheist and a bad one at that. Second, no credible scientist truly believes the quantum vacuum ACTUALLY disobeys cause and effect. If scientists believed that, then they'd abandon science altogether, or at least the portion that focuses on the behavior of subatomic particles. I guess they'd have to say “it's magic” or a “miracle”? Don't you atheists hate this kind of language?

Perhaps the quantum field is God's typewriter. Regardless, none of what you wrote refutes the main points in my original post. A quantum field producing seemingly random events isn't nonbeing producing being, now is it?

[no one]

This William Lane Craig has a tell when he lies, his lips move.

[zebo-the-fat]

If your god made everything in the universe, where was he before he made it? (heaven is not an answer because it must be part of the universe (defined as everything that exists)
Who made your god (if you say "he always existed" why can that not apply to everything else?)

[Gwaithmir]

First of all, Victor Stenger is an atheist and a bad one at that. Second, no credible scientist truly believes the quantum vacuum ACTUALLY disobeys cause and effect. If scientists believed that, then they'd abandon science altogether, or at least the portion that focuses on the behavior of subatomic particles. I guess they'd have to say “it's magic” or a “miracle”? Don't you atheists hate this kind of language?

Perhaps the quantum field is God's typewriter. Regardless, none of what you wrote refutes the main points in my original post. A quantum field producing seemingly random events isn't nonbeing producing being, now is it?

I look forward to seeing your peer-reviewed paper on the origins of the universe in NATURE as well as your subsequent Nobel Prize for overturning the viable theories of present day cosmologists like Victor Stenger, Lawrence Krauss and Alan Guth.

[The Architect Of Fate]

By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Do you believe in the god that is triune in nature and who, through the Son, is incarnate in Jesus? If so, I have to wonder what kind of logical bridge gets you from a logically plausible first cause to what is a patently absurd idea of a god? If not, then what do you mean then by "more than that"?

But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

The issue here with your argument from scientific evidence is that Krauss is not the contemporary scientific evidence on whether the universe had a finite past or not. For that, we need a conclusive body of research in cosmology/astrophysics that points to the conclusion that the universe did indeed have a finite past.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

One plausible answer to this is that time is not how we intuit it. Under the B-theory of time, for example, there is no flow of time. Which means there are no traversion of infinite amount of changes to worry about. And therefore, if the B-theory of time is true, then the Kalam argument fails. Even William Lane Craig has had to admit this, and this may be partly why he advocates for the not-so-scientific A-theory of time

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

You are arguing for some eternal cause which you have been conditioned to label "God". That is fine, except then it's a case of you making an argument for something that ultimately is not what you're aiming to convince atheists of.

Oh and i will add 

Krauss believes that our universe is one of an infinite chain of universes

 cosmologist Sean Carroll

Yes, of course. The BGV theorem makes assumptions, and those assumptions might be false. Indeed, viable past-eternal models have been constructed. Most importantly, the BGV theorem only refers to classical spacetime, not to quantum gravity. It says nothing at all about whether the universe must have a beginning, only about the limits of the classical approximation.

Or

The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime … [but] quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. … This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.

Vilenkin

That is all . Im done .

[Deesse23]

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it?

You are shifting the burden of proof. Please provide evidence for your assertion, don't ask others to provide evidence for anything else.
So please support your assertion with evidence that some "being" caused the universe, other than your personal incredulity.

Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Rocks exist, but rocks are no beings. That is if I understood your usage  of this word correctly. Otherwise please define "being".
I sense a confusion of being with existence on one hand and with " a being" on the other. Please clarify.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is this contemporary science anything like fairy tale science?

Oof. Looks like I've wasted my time here. I thought there would be a better defense of atheism.

Well, that was easy.

The comment shows significant ignorance on your part. Atheism requires no defense because it makes no claims.  It is a statement of personal belief.

It doesn't much matter if it is stated, 'I believe there are no gods' or 'I do not believe there are gods'.  Statements reflecting personal belief require no defense or justification.  One may give reasons for having those beliefs (and those reasons may be good or bad), but that's not the same as defending them.

Boru

[possibletarian]

Would god existing require god to have 'thoughts' ?

The God that I'm describing in this argument would possess an amount of knowledge that is sufficient for producing all things: the universe, multiverse, etc. Also, this God is non-physical. Therefore, there wouldn't be a "thinking" or "thought" process prior to any of His actions.

So in what way was the universe intelligently designed ?

---

You forgot to add "according to my mythology"

This argument is purely based on reason and contemporary science.

Actually it's based on a list of definitions, none of which you can show to be true , you just add changeless, timeless etc, all without any evidence or real meaning to come to what you need your god to be.

Then you add some stories you can't show to be true and call it reason.

[Abaddon_ire]

Actually it is you who has failed to prove that your God exists.

First, very few things can be “proved.” Proofs are in mathematics.

You couldn't “prove” to me that the universe wasn't made five minutes ago with the appearance of being 13.8 billion years old, for instance.

What I'm doing instead is analyzing the possible explanations for the origin of all things using contemporary scientific evidence and reason. I see only two possible explanations. One is logically incoherent. The other one is logically incoherent if atheism is true. Therefore, one must either abandon atheism or choose a logically incoherent explanation for the origin of all things.

"Prove" atheism is true? Well that is easy. I am an atheist. I believe in no gods. This is true.

Your problem is that you fail to understand that atheism is a privative.

Of course, you likely do not understand what a privative is either.

Even at the best outcome for you that God created the universe, it tells us nothing in particular about this alleged god-being.

That's plainly false. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be non-physical and space-less. A being who created all of matter and energy would need to be at least powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe like ours. A being who created space-time would need to be timeless. Finally, the finitude of the universe suggests that the being chose to create it; otherwise, the effect (the universe) would have been past-eternal like its cause is.

That is a wild claim. Justify it. Why can it not be universe forming pixies who perished in the effort of creating the universe?

There is certainly nothing about Christian theology in the argument

Big true. But didn't I say that right in the beginning of my post?

And you obviated it by dragging in WLC and his bovine Kalam argument.

this god could exist but yet be the Muslim god or one of the Hindu gods or a Greek or Norse or Native American or any other god

No, not any “god.” Just the definitions of God that include the properties described up above.

This is merely the dishonest "wedge" tactic.

In fact, it does not even insist that this god exists now but that it existed at the beginning. It does not prove there is a god today, and nor can it prove there is a god like the Theists, let alone the Christians, envision.

If the God described above exists, then theism is true and atheism is false. The next question should be did God reveal Himself to His creation?

Still can't figure out what atheism is, then?

To make matters even worse for you are advances in our scientific understanding of the world have thrown the very notion of cause into question.

No it hasn't. And if it has, not in the way you think. If cause and effect were really abandoned, then that would render science impossible. Ironically, the abandonment of cause and effect would point us to the inexplicable, magical, or supernatural. I thought you were against these types of things?

So you are not a scientist, then. OK.

Particularly the discovery of the quantum nature of subatomic reality has substituted a statistical probability view of events for the old familiar deterministic or 'causal' one.

The Bible does teach us that we have free will, so I wouldn't be surprised. Also, I'm not sure why you're equivocating determinism with causality. Imagine a random number generator and each number represents a cause and each one of these causes has its own effect. Now imagine this underlying all of reality. There, I've married causality with indeterminism. I could also say that this randomness is only apparently random in the same way a random number generator is inside a computer. Random number generators are not truly random because they all have underlying algorithms. The same may be true about quantum mechanics. Regardless, I don't see how any of this refutes the main points in my original post.

The bible teaches nothing to anyone. Didn't take long for you to abandon your dishonest "wedge" argument and run, nay sprint, to the bible. Why you would cite the ramblings of anonymous goat herders is a mystery. Let me guess. You likely think the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right?

Furthermore, if one can cite the bible as authoritative then slavery is OK, right? And human sacrifice, right? And incest, right? And genocide, right? And so on through the atrocities that the risible tome mandates.

ln other words, where it has been traditionally argued that some prior condition A is necessary and sufficient for (the 'cause' of) event B

Actually, when A is the cause of B that means A is sufficient for B and B is necessary.

Moving on...

Yes, you want to move on from the difficult questions as fast as possible, don't you. You can just feel Occam breath on your neck.

As physicist Victor Stenger has stated, "In the quantum world ... things can simply happen ... I have shown that directional causality, or causal precedence, is in fact a classical, macroscopic concept that does not apply at the fundamental level of elementary particle interactions, where fundamental interactions make no distinction between cause and effect". In such a view of reality, a 'cause' is neither always adequate to explain an event — even the big event.

First of all, Victor Stenger is an atheist and a bad one at that. Second, no credible scientist truly believes the quantum vacuum ACTUALLY disobeys cause and effect. If scientists believed that, then they'd abandon science altogether, or at least the portion that focuses on the behavior of subatomic particles. I guess they'd have to say “it's magic” or a “miracle”? Don't you atheists hate this kind of language?

Massive strawman. You should read up on Sean Carroll.

Perhaps the quantum field is God's typewriter. Regardless, none of what you wrote refutes the main points in my original post. A quantum field producing seemingly random events isn't nonbeing producing being, now is it?

Can you produce a sample of absolutely nothing for us to examine?

No? OK then how did you determine what absolutely nothing can or cannot do? Or what properties it may or may not have?

ETA: Oh, right, it is Sunday. This is clearly some naive kid doing his Sunday School homework. It is the only explanation for such a naive line of thought.

[Mr.wizard]

By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things? It seems to me that we're left with the following explanations:

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

The second explanation gets rid of the problem of nonbeing producing being and there doesn't seem to be any glaring issue with it. Issues arise only if you're an atheist. Put simply, atheists do not believe that God exists. There are many flavors of atheism and ways that people spin the word, but this is what it really comes down to. If an atheist chooses to accept the second explanation, then they're forced to believe that something eternal exists, but it's not God. Typically, atheists who choose this second explanation will believe that the universe or multiverse is eternal. But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

Putting aside the fallacies you committed, you misunderstand what science says about the origins of the universe, our local representation of the universe is thought to have a beginning. Science does not know what happened before the beginning of our universe, you can't rule out that there is an eternal cosmos that universe exists in or multiverse or string theory or something we just don't know about. 

Also I don't know how you can include god in the list of plausible explanations for the universe when you haven't even established a god exists or is even possible. You claim god is a sufficient cause for the universe but that's only because you defined him that way, how did you rule out out magic as the cause of the universe?