I'm not looking for proof of God; merely some credible evidence. Is that too much to ask for?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I don't think that's too much to ask for. We have the right to seek for answers to our questions.
No, it is the perfect thing to ask for, without credible evidence of something there is no reason to consider it.
The most convincing and powerful argument for the existence of God is as follows:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The Universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause.
This argument, if it was correct, would only get you to "cause" not god.
By examining what it means to be a cause of the Universe, you arrive at the conclusion that an immaterial (spaceless), atemporal (timeless), changeless, eternal, and personal agent must have done it. This means that the agent cause of the Universe is a being with an intelligence and freedom of the will (personal).
Nope. It would only lead to the conclusion that it is outside the universe, just because we don't know what else might beyond our bubble of spacetime, does not mean we get to assume that there is no space or time outside of it. Not even physicists assume that.
"It would only lead to the conclusion that it is outside the Universe..."
You seem to be misunderstanding the point. You have to examine what it means to exist outside of the Universe. You will not exist in space and so will not be physical (immaterial). You will not exist within time, and so will not endure through time, rendering you timeless. Since you do not endure through time, you will not undergo change. This means that you cannot come into (or go out of) existence, rendering you eternal.
If the necessary and sufficient conditions which produce an effect are present literally forever, then the effect will be produced forever ago, and so the effect must also exist literally forever. But, this isn't the case with the Universe. it's cause is eternal by necessity, as I've just demonstrated, but the Universe is not eternal. This means that the cause must possess freedom of the will (personal) so that it can refrain from creation in a timeless state sans its effect. If the cause is not able to decide when to produce its effect, then the simple existence of the cause will demand the effect. For instance, water being 212 degrees Fahrenheit demands that water boil, the temperature cannot choose when to make water boil.
So we have logically concluded that the cause of the Universe is spaceless (immaterial), timeless (atemporal), eternal, and personal.
"You seem to be misunderstanding the point."
We'll see.
"You have to examine what it means to exist outside of the Universe."
We can't examine what it means to exist outside of the universe, we don't know what else may or may not exist outside of the universe, so all examination of it is excluded by definition.
"You will not exist in space and so will not be physical (immaterial)."
Premature, other spacetimes may exist besides our own.
"You will not exist within time, and so will not endure through time, rendering you timeless."
Above.
"Since you do not endure through time, you will not undergo change."
Above.
"This means that you cannot come into (or go out of) existence, rendering you eternal."
Like infinite things by your definition, it is not entirely certain eternal things can exist either, it can't be demonstrated outside of bald assertion.
"If the necessary and sufficient conditions which produce an effect are present literally forever, then the effect will be produced forever ago, and so the effect must also exist literally forever."
Oh? So you do have a tense-less view of time after all, considering you treat the effect as if it must be static and unchanging.
"But, this isn't the case with the Universe. it's cause is eternal by necessity, as I've just demonstrated, but the Universe is not eternal."
You haven't demonstrated any such thing, you have made many bald assertions, but haven't actually demonstrated anything.
"This means that the cause must possess freedom of the will (personal) so that it can refrain from creation in a timeless state sans its effect."
Ha, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"If the cause is not able to decide when to produce its effect, then the simple existence of the cause will demand the effect. For instance, water being 212 degrees Fahrenheit demands that water boil, the temperature cannot choose when to make water boil."
Time determines it, time is necessary for ALL change and action, timeless things can never do anything by definition.
"So we have logically concluded that the cause of the Universe is spaceless (immaterial), timeless (atemporal), eternal, and personal."
No, you have asserted a word salad of bullshit and pretended that you demonstrated it, you did nothing of the sort.
If you are positing God as the cause of the universe, your argument is feeble . It is more than likely that the universe had a cause (unless you subscribe to the 'infinite' view), but that cause was not God, Your argument states that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' so if God was the cause who caused God, another God, and so on infinitum?
If you say that God did not need a cause, then why should the universe? The only logical way out of this impasse for you is to claim that God created himself, which is absurd nonsense.
Science is beginning to unravel the origins of the cosmos, surely by adding another unnecessary complication of determining the origins of an invisible, unknowable and unproven God as the cause, is a total waste of man's time and intellect.
"Your argument states that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' so if God was the cause who caused God..."
Yes, premise (1) of the Kalam argument does state "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". Whatever BEGINS to exist. By definition, as a timeless and thereby changeless being, God cannot come into existence, as that is change, and timelessness entails absolute changelessness.
"If you say that God did not need a cause, then why should the universe?"
Because the Universe began to exist, which alone is sufficient grounds for demanding a causal explanation. And, as you can find above, I have already justified why God is exempt from a cause, so please don't pull some "special pleading" excuse out of the air.
The thread started with the question "I'm not looking for proof of God; merely some credible evidence. Is that too much to ask for?"
Some highly questionable arguments for the existence of God, falls very short of constituting "some credible evidence".
If we, for arguments sake, assume that the premises of the "Kamal argument" are correct as they are stated. How does one jump from that to the remarkable conclusion:
"By examining what it means to be a cause of the Universe, you arrive at the conclusion that an immaterial (spaceless), atemporal (timeless), changeless, eternal, and personal agent must have done it. This means that the agent cause of the Universe is a being with an intelligence and freedom of the will (personal)."
Stating that a "personal agent must have done it.", is just absurd. How does one derive that it was a "personal" agent?
Why not an inanimate force, perhaps something beyond the current scope of science?
Just because a cause is not yet known, does not infer a God, demon, ghost or magical forces. Before we knew what caused the movement of the sun and the moon, we believed it was caused by supernatural beings (or that they actually were supernatural beings). Before we knew about bacteria and viruses, we thought illnesses was caused by curses, black magic, demons and so on. Claiming that science cannot tell us how the universe began, does nothing to prove that a deity willed it into existence.
The statement "God is exempt from a cause", stands and falls with several assumptions, like "god is changeless".
Quote by "Shock of God" from the thread named "Proof of God":
"God is changeless only until He chooses to act to create, thus ending his changeless and timeless state."
If something is changeless only until it is no longer changeless, it simply isn't changeless. It is just self contradicting.
Using logic to argue for the existence of God, will lead nowhere. We can use "logic" to "prove" the opposite just as easily:
God is omniscient. For any action that an omniscient being can take, it would already be aware of the resulting consequence. Since God was the only thing that existed before creation, there would be no need for God to take any action. God would already be aware of every possible outcome. It would just be an exercise in complete futility.
Or how about this:
To believe is to not know. If you know, it is no longer just a mere belief, thus you are no longer a believer. Therefore, a believer cannot claim to know for sure that their God exists, as that would make them a nonbeliever.
Belief is personal, as it should be. You are entitled to your own beliefs. But claiming to know things that you could not possibly know, is just trying to fertilize an already over fertilized Internet with more bull excrements.
"Stating that a "personal agent must have done it.", is just absurd. How does one derive that it was a "personal" agent?
Why not an inanimate force, perhaps something beyond the current scope of science?"
You have to examine what it means to exist outside of the Universe. You will not exist in space and so will not be physical (immaterial). You will not exist within time, and so will not endure through time, rendering you timeless. Since you do not endure through time, you will not undergo change. This means that you cannot come into (or go out of) existence, rendering you eternal.
If the necessary and sufficient conditions which produce an effect are present literally forever, then the effect will be produced forever ago, and so the effect must also exist literally forever. But, this isn't the case with the Universe. it's cause is eternal by necessity, as I've just demonstrated, but the Universe is not eternal. This means that the cause must possess freedom of the will (personal) so that it can refrain from creation in a timeless state sans its effect. If the cause is not able to decide when to produce its effect, then the simple existence of the cause will demand the effect. For instance, water being 212 degrees Fahrenheit demands that water boil, the temperature cannot choose when to make water boil.
So we have logically concluded that the cause of the Universe is spaceless (immaterial), timeless (atemporal), eternal, and personal.
"If something is changeless only until it is no longer changeless, it simply isn't changeless. It is just self contradicting."
This is only true under the false assumption that God's changelessness means that He *cannot* change, ever. God is not changeless because He *cannot* change, God is changeless because He is refraining from changing. When God chooses to change, He is no longer changeless and timeless.
"God is omniscient. For any action that an omniscient being can take, it would already be aware of the resulting consequence. Since God was the only thing that existed before creation, there would be no need for God to take any action. God would already be aware of every possible outcome. It would just be an exercise in complete futility."
Even if God knew all the outcomes, that does not somehow exempt Him from being able to instantiate the Universe. He can know all the possible outcomes and still create the Universe is He freely wishes to.
It is a good argument. In that the conclusion (3) follows given 1 and 2 are true. However, since there is no reason to believe 1 or 2 are true, it is just mental masturbation.
Your first premise is unfounded. Can you prove that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? Once we start talking about things outside of this universe beginning to exist, on what grounds are you claiming that this must be the case? I assume you might say that this is the case because all things that you know of have a cause. But that's just an argument from ignorance. Just because you know of nothing that began to exist without a cause, doesn't mean it is impossible for things to exist without a cause. Especially if the thing in question began to exist when there were no laws of physics that we now have governing this universe.That would be as silly as me claiming that because I have never seen a periwinkle colored planet, it is impossible for a planet to be periwinkle.
Also as far as we know, the cause of the beginnig of the universe was the Big Bang. Not only is your first premise invalid, rendering the entire argument invalid, but the argument doesn't lead anywhere past the cause we already know about. And as others have already pointed out, even if the argument were completely valid and the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe, all the argument shows is that there was a cause. It doesn't even lend a single hint at asingle attribute/characteristic of that cause.
Firstly, before I start, I must point out that if you're going to positively assert that "... your first premise invalid, rendering the entire argument invalid...", then you're also going to need to substantiate it.
Now, let me just jump in.
Not only has something coming into existence without a cause never been observed, but it is logically impossible. An action cannot happen if there is not something to instantiate the action. A glass of water cannot tip over without force to tip it over, and something to exert that force. A log cannot catch on fire without the proper amount of heat, and something to apply it.
If you're going to contend that things can come into existence without causes, I have to ask, if the action has literally no cause, then by what means did the action even happen?
So premise (1) of the Kalam cosmological argument is perfectly valid.
Secondarily, the Big Bang was not the cause of the Universe, the Big Bang was the Universe coming into existence, and so is the effect of a cause. And we do have reasons to ascribe characteristics to the cause, because we can logically deduce the attributes that the cause of the Universe would have, as I have done in two other comments within this thread (which you may find above).
shock of god - " the Big Bang was the Universe coming into existence"
The big bang is nothing more than a set of evolution laws describing the evolution from one set of conditions to another; no different than the equations that describe what will happen to a ball that starts on the side of a hill.
"Firstly, before I start, I must point out that if you're going to positively assert that "... your first premise invalid, rendering the entire argument invalid...", then you're also going to need to substantiate it."
The entire post following the claim was the substantiation.
"If you're going to contend that things can come into existence without causes, I have to ask, if the action has literally no cause, then by what means did the action even happen?"
Here you have created a false dichotomy where you assume that because I do not accept that it is impossible for something to be uncaused, that I must be claiming that things happen without a cause. We are talking about the beginning of the universe as we know it. As far as we know, this was the beginning of the physical constants we now observe, and base our understanding on. We cannot possibly be making claims as to what is possible or impossible before this point, or outside of the observable universe. I am not claiming that it is possible that things come into existesnce without causes. Just like I am not claiming that there is a periwinkle planet. I am telling you that you are not justified in claiming that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence without a cuase because you have literally NO information about what "was" before the universe, ouside the universe, etc. You are basing your premise on your understanding of how the universe works. It may or may not, and likely does not apply to anything besides this universe.
So, if you are willing to say that it is indeed impossible that what is outside of / before the universe does not operate under the same constraints as this universe, are you willing to accept that it is impossible that there are any periwinkle planets in existence? Does the fact that you have never observed something mean it is literally impossible when you are discussing a reality outside of the universe? On what grounds do you establish anything about the reality outside of the universe? I don't think you can know anything about it, and I don't think you can claim that it is possible or impossible that something can come into existence without a cause. You simply cannot know. There is no data or evidence to work with here.
Shock of God: You're right. The most convincing argument for the existence of god ever was the cosmological argument (in medieval philosophy) and William Lane Craig didn't invent it either. WLC lifted that from Thomas Aquinas' five "proofs" of god's existence (first cause, necessary being, unmoved mover, teleological, and greater degrees. Aquinas would later recognize that his arguments would imply a "simple" god being lacking all the attributes posited by the Christian church. After all how could a god being know anything if it existed before anything that was knowable? How could a god being be all powerful if there is nothing to be powerful over? How could a god being be all present to nothing? Well, you get the picture. It becomes a logical contradiction to even posit a god being as a beginning point for all that is, much less, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, "personal" god claimed by religion. Aquinas ultimately fell back on "faith" and the "human inability to know" through painful mental yoga in his Summa Theologica. Immanuel Kant would later perform mental jumping jacks with "a priori" knowledge along with Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". All fail miserably in the face of new discoveries made by science since they depart on what we observe, they become illogical.
WLC comes along later with his laughable Kalam Cosmological argument. Besides the cheesy syllogism you point out, he also uses the logical fallacy of special pleading to posit a "personal, all knowing, all powerful, etc.... god in further steps of the Kalam. His A/B time theory thing fails in the light of what is known by cosmological science in the theory of special relativity. WLC is supposed to have a PhD in philosophy but, anything he says or writes is suspect. His assertions smack of apology for profit and, plain old bullshit. They are not very well thought out. My perspective: save the bullshit for the rookies.
My view on the subject along with those pointed out by Dr. Richard Carrier is as follows: one cannot describe attributes of a cause that they know nothing of. Let science do its thing. The trend is that science constantly finds answers to questions formerly explained by goddidit. Apologist philosophy fails on logical. Religion fails on spurious claims. The Epicurean Paradox is not satisfied meaning that the problem of evil points to one of two outcomes: either god is a dick or, god does not exist. The notion of a god is fractured among thousands of religious beliefs around the world. The fact that any god being has been inert in my life and observations has lead me to all these conclusions.
There is evidence for God all around us. You simply choose not to accept it because of your world view. It is much easier to see that God created everything, than to believe nature did it.
I think some words got scrambled? It should be: There is evidence against God all around us. You simply choose not to accept it because of your world view. It is much easier to believe that God created everything, than to see nature did it.
"There is evidence for God all around us. You simply choose not to accept it because of your world view. It is much easier to see that God created everything, than to believe nature did it."-
Then god, since it cares so much for us, could step in already and make it even more obvious to us right?
There is no credible evidence, only hypothesis. Anyone that claims proof is an idiot. A book written 4000 years ago is not proof. Any explanation at this point is a "sword in a field." One chooses the best explanation that suits their agenda of reason. We can account for everything after the big bang, but we do not know what happen before it. For all we know, finding that out may lead to more questions than answers. Especially if "M" theory is correct. That will be a whole other box full of "WTF!".
This was a great little story about belief, like a book for children, 28 pages: http://dragoninmygarage.evolvedtowonder.com
Cristian Theists will tell us that "god must remain hidden". I asked them why it was, that in the bible, Jesus went around zapping off miracles thereby exposing the amazing power of god. I'm still waiting for an answer to that one...
Ah, the problems of an unfounded syllogism:
1.) Everything ever observed beginning to exist has had a material cause.
2.) The Universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the Universe must have had a material cause.
1.) Whatever has caused something to begin to exist has always had a cause.
2.) Something caused the Universe to begin to exist.
3.) Therefore, that something must have a cause.
1.) Everything ever observed to exist has had a cause.
2.) The thing that caused the universe must have existed.
3.) Therefore, the thing that caused the Universe must have existed, so must have a cause.
Re-framing the syllogism a hundred different ways will show you its flaw, synthetic propositions aren't used in science for a reason, because of GIGO.
Q: Is that too much to ask?
A: Yes (if you are asking someone to back up their un-testable, un-provable, un-observable claims about life the universe and everything.)