Major Arguments for the Existence of God

[Randy_Carson]

MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Kalam Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

1. 
   *]Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   *]The universe began to exist.
   *]Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   
   Leibniz’ Contingency Argument
   youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I
   
   1. 
      *]Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause.
      *]If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation is God.
      *]The universe exists.
      *]Therefore, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe.
      
      Kreeft’s Contingency Argument
      strangenotions.com/the-contingency-argument-for-god/
      
      1. 
         *]If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
         *]The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
         *]Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
         *]What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
         *]Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
         
         Teleological (Fine-Tuning) Argument
         youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
         
         1. 
            *]The universe appears to be finely-tuned to support life.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
            *]Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.
            
            PUTTING THEM ALL TOGETHER
            
            It’s reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a bar of chocolate does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a candy maker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a candy bar, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause.
            
            Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary for the universe to exist cannot be part of the universe, or exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time because the universe cannot bring itself into existence. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.
            
            Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer. This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call “God”.
            

            ---

            Finally, two additional arguments in favor of the existence of God:
            
            **The Ontological Argument
            **youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74
            
            1. 
               *]If it is possible that a Maximally Great Being (MGB) exists.
               *]If it is possible that a MGB being exists, then a MGB exists in some possible world.
               *]If a MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.
               *]If a MGB exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
               *]If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists.
               *]Therefore, a MGB exists.
               
               The Moral Argument
               youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
               
               1. 
                  *]If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
                  *]But objective moral values and duties do exist.
                  *]Therefore, God exists.

 

[STT]

MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Kalam Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

1. 
   *]Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   *]The universe began to exist.
   *]Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. 
   The first premises is not essentially right. The idea is simple, there is no point before the beginning of the universe hence the universe does not have any cause. I have a thread on this here. One can of course argue that the act of creation on nothing is something. In that case we don’t know which case is correct.
   

   Leibniz’ Contingency Argument
   youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I
   
   

   1. 
      *]Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause.
      *]If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation is God.
      *]The universe exists.
      *]Therefore, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe.

   1. 
      The first premises is not essentially correct. We simply don’t know if there is any explanation for existence of the universe.
      

      Kreeft’s Contingency Argument
      strangenotions.com/the-contingency-argument-for-god/
      
      

      1. 
         *]If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
         *]The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
         *]Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
         *]What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
         *]Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

      1. 
         The first premises is not essentially correct. Consider the case of God.
         

         Teleological (Fine-Tuning) Argument
         youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
         
         

         1. 
            *]The universe appears to be finely-tuned to support life.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
            *]Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

         1. 
            This is not a good argument. We simply don’t know if there are other universes. We also don’t know whether the life on Earth is the only possible form of life.
            

            Finally, two additional arguments in favor of the existence of God:
            
            **The Ontological Argument
            **youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74
            
            

            1. 
               *]If it is possible that a Maximally Great Being (MGB) exists.
               *]If it is possible that a MGB being exists, then a MGB exists in some possible world.
               *]If a MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.
               *]If a MGB exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
               *]If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists.
               *]Therefore, a MGB exists.

            1. 
               I cannot understand this argument. What is the world?
               

               The Moral Argument
               youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
               
               

               1. 
                  *]If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
                  *]But objective moral values and duties do exist.
                  *]Therefore, God exists.

               1. 
                  This is a weak argument. We don’t know whether objective moral values exist or not.
                  
                  To summarize one cannot offer any proof for existence or nonexistence of God.

 

[Tomdstone]

The universe began to exist.

Not proven according to Paul J. Steinhardt, professor at Princeton.

 

[Wesrock]

For now, I just want to add that the Teleological Argument given above is an Intelligent Design argument. More importantly. I just want to state that this is not the teleological argument of Aquinas’ five ways.

STT’s objection to the Kalam argument (which is not one I adhere to) misses the point that not all causes must be temporal. It is also a case of special pleading. Scholasticism views causation in broader terms, more like “ontological dependence.”

STT’s objection to Leibniz’ argument is essentially a case of special pleading, and denying the first premise has grave consequences in terms of what we can say about whether anything about reality is at all intelligible, right down to our own logical arguments.

His objection to Kreeft’s argument is just incorrect. There is no special pleading for God in the first premise. It applies to God as well. All (good) arguments for God argue that God must also have that whereby he exists, or a reason for his existence. To say so is not to say that God has a cause for his existence. God has no cause. A cause is some type of dependency on an external actor. A cause is a type of reason, but not all reasons are causes.

I am also unconvinced by the fine-tuning argument, but STT’s objection to it seems to largely miss the point.

 

[STT]

STT’s objection to the Kalam argument (which is not one I adhere to) misses the point that not all causes must be temporal. It is also a case of special pleading. Scholasticism views causation in broader terms, more like “ontological dependence.”

I am aware of the fact that not all causes are temporal. I however don’t see what your objection is about.

STT’s objection to Leibniz’ argument is essentially a case of special pleading, and denying the first premise has grave consequences in terms of what we can say about whether anything about reality is at all intelligible, right down to our own logical arguments.

There is a difference between explanation of why things exist and how things behave. But what intelligibility has to do with the argument?

His objection to Kreeft’s argument is just incorrect. There is no special pleading for God in the first premise. It applies to God as well. All (good) arguments for God argue that God must also have that whereby he exists, or a reason for his existence. To say so is not to say that God has a cause for his existence. God has no cause. A cause is some type of dependency on an external actor. A cause is a type of reason, but not all reasons are causes.

You are correct. Set lets attack to argument in another way: We are only sure about the fact that we experience. We can never be sure that the universe as we know exist at all. So the argument doesn’t follow.

I am also unconvinced by the fine-tuning argument, but STT’s objection to it seems to largely miss the point.

I don’t think so. What do you think that I am missing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The first premises is not essentially right. The idea is simple, there is no point before the beginning of the universe hence the universe does not have any cause. I have a thread on this here. One can of course argue that the act of creation on nothing is something. In that case we don’t know which case is correct.

The first premises is not essentially correct. We simply don’t know if there is any explanation for existence of the universe.

The first premises is not essentially correct. Consider the case of God.

This is not a good argument. We simply don’t know if there are other universes. We also don’t know whether the life on Earth is the only possible form of life.

I cannot understand this argument. What is the world?

This is a weak argument. We don’t know whether objective moral values exist or not.

To summarize one cannot offer any proof for existence or nonexistence of God.

Heh…yeah, your responses are keeping the professional philosophers up at night.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not proven according to Paul J. Steinhardt, professor at Princeton.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
By William Lane Craig
reasonablefaith.org/transcript-kalam-cosmological-argument

Does God exist? Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

One approach to answering this question is the Cosmological Argument. It goes like this…

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Is the first premise true? Let’s consider…

Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you’ve got a hat and a magician. And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don’t we see this happening all the time? No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-“The universe is just there, and that’s all.”

First, let’s consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that’s the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein’s equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.

**Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn’t long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning.” This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model.**

It’s quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause. And since the universe can’t cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful.

Much like… God.

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
By William Lane Craig
reasonablefaith.org/transcript-kalam-cosmological-argument

Does God exist? Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

One approach to answering this question is the Cosmological Argument. It goes like this…

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Is the first premise true? Let’s consider…

Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you’ve got a hat and a magician. And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don’t we see this happening all the time? No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-“The universe is just there, and that’s all.”

First, let’s consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that’s the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein’s equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.

**Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn’t long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning.” This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model.**

It’s quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause. And since the universe can’t cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful.

Much like… God.

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.

Stephen hawking and Brian Greene have said nice things about the cyclical universe theory advanced by Princeton Professor Paul Steinhardt. Interested readers can see for themselves how he has answered all of the objections against it.Please see:
Endless Universe: Beyond The Big Bang by Paul J. Steinhardt
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf
edge.org/conversation/paul_steinhardt-the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt
youtube.com/watch?v=cEijLstRLg8

 

[goout]

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn’t long before alternative models popped into existence. **But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. **More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning.” This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

Love the hidden pun in there.

 

[Tomdstone]

More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning.” .

The BGV theory relies on an unproven assumption that the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic. As far as I can see from reading the paper, the BGV theorems give a set of conditions which they assume (but no proof given) correspond to eternal inflation, then show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete.

 

[Wesrock]

I am aware of the fact that not all causes are temporal. I however don’t see what your objection is about.

You previously stated, “The idea is simple, there is no point before the beginning of the universe hence the universe does not have any cause.” This premise is wrong. That there is no point before the beginning of the universe does not mean that the universe has no cause.

There is a difference between explanation of why things exist and how things behave. But what intelligibility has to do with the argument?

Everything we know has reasons for being. There are no counter-examples. The entire field of scientific inquiry is based on the belief that all things have reasons for being. It’s a special pleading fallacy to claim that the universe or anything else doesn’t. If you admit that not everything must have a principle of sufficient reason, you’re ultimately admitting that you have no grounds to deny that things can happen for no reason. The sun could disappear tomorrow without explanation. And that’s perfectly acceptable. There might be no reason for its disappearance. No cause. It’s just something we have to accept. Your thoughts, your logic, your perceptions, also might have no reason for being or causal relationship to the world outside you. You might believe they do, but ultimately you really don’t have any legs to stand on with this if you deny the PSR. If the PSR isn’t true in all circumstances, any partial application of it is ultimately arbitrary. You admit unintelligibility into the universe. Things happen, and if things can happen without reason, I’m not sure why we must always try and look for an explanation. Especially if all of our rational faculties might act and process without reasons, too.

You are correct. Set lets attack to argument in another way: We are only sure about the fact that we experience. We can never be sure that the universe as we know exist at all. So the argument doesn’t follow.

I think, therefore I am. Are you actually sure of your experience? Are you sure it has any causal relationship to the outside world or even yourself?

I mean really, you open this door and the only stop is extreme solipsism, and there’s no point to hit the brakes sooner without being arbitrary. What world do you want to live in? An intelligible one? Or one in which everything is doubted, right down to 1+1=2. The arguments are based on the world being intelligible, on things having reason for being. Why do people always feel the need to embrace extreme solipsism on the subject of God, but never for any type of scientific inquiry or other metaphysical position? Just God. When people debate the big bang, or global warming, or evolutionary theory, or special relativity, or economics, or ethics, or social theory, or the meaning behind a passage ina book, people don’t object by saying “Well, we can never be sure that the universe as we know it exists at all. So your argument has no grounds to stand on.” With nothing else but God are people willing to just dismiss an opposing rational argument because we have no proof that we’re not just disembodied consciousness whose experiences are completely governed by some demon implanting them in our head, if there’s any reason for them at all. No, intelligibility is taken for granted everywhere (everywhere!) except when we start to argue God. Then everyone becomes a solipsist and it’s okay to say we can’t really rely on our rational faculties at all.

Sorry for the rant. Arguments for God start from the position that the world is an intelligible place and that human experience is causally related to the universe. And arguments for God are hardly unique for taking that starting position, if I might say so. It’s not an extreme position to take. Furthermore, an argument for God is not a proof in the sense of something that is scientifically falsifiable. It’s something closer to a mathematical proof. It’s not proven wrong by new evidence, it’s proven wrong by finding an error in the logic that led to the answer. Of course, metaphysical inquiry is not as bound by as tight rules as mathematics, which gives more room for doubt for any argument and prevailing opposing views. Still, unless you’re committed to denying reason an intelligibility of the universe in all other fields, it seems like a reasoned argument against it is in order rather than just an out of hand dismissal.

I don’t think so. What do you think that I am missing.

I’m not sure how much effort I want to put into defending the fine-tuning argument. It’s not entirely without merit, but it’s hardly something that can be convincing as a stand-alone argument. But simply stated, I hardly know how “We simply don’t know if there are other universes” and “We also don’t know whether the life on Earth is the only possible form of life” are relevant to the point being made. The fine-tuning argument does not assume only one universe and only one possible mode of organic life, the same way there is not only one way to build a pocket watch. Still, you don’t expect a fully operational pocket watch of any sort to just wash up on the beach someday and discover it was put together by entirely “natural” processes of nature.

---

I’ve been itching to speak more about the Ontological Argument for some time now, and this topic is a great opportunity. Unfortunately, I just don’t know when I’ll ever have the time.

 

[STT]

You previously stated, “The idea is simple, there is no point before the beginning of the universe hence the universe does not have any cause.” This premise is wrong. That there is no point before the beginning of the universe does not mean that the universe has no cause.

That is not wrong. We already discussed this and conclude that, the fact that the universe has a beginning and the fact that there is not point before beginning means that the universe cannot have a temporal cause. I think that you are talking about ontological cause. I think one cannot or can show that ontological cause is needed for creation of the universe.

Everything we know has reasons for being. There are no counter-examples. The entire field of scientific inquiry is based on the belief that all things have reasons for being.

That is not correct. The entire field of science is based on the fact that the behavior of the subject matter is reasonable and intelligible.

I think, therefore I am. Are you actually sure of your experience?

Yes, the experience is the only thing that I can’t doubt. The content of my experience which could be everything is subject of doubt.

Are you sure it has any causal relationship to the outside world or even yourself?

I mean really, you open this door and the only stop is extreme solipsism, and there’s no point to hit the brakes sooner without being arbitrary.

I think that the proof of existence of God should not depend on philosophical view. I think all ontological argument are wrong because the basic premises for all of them is that something exists.

What world do you want to live in? An intelligible one? Or one in which everything is doubted, right down to 1+1=2. The arguments are based on the world being intelligible, on things having reason for being. Why do people always feel the need to embrace extreme solipsism on the subject of God, but never for any type of scientific inquiry or other metaphysical position? Just God.

Because God is the ultimate truth and the proof for his existence should not dependent on the philosophical view or reference view. I believe that is what Augustine believed.

When people debate the big bang, or global warming, or evolutionary theory, or special relativity, or economics, or ethics, or social theory, or the meaning behind a passage ina book, people don’t object by saying "Well, we can never be sure that the universe as we know it exists at all.

Not any of the example you provided has anything to do with ultimate truth, God. All the example are reference dependent.

So your argument has no grounds to stand on." With nothing else but God are people willing to just dismiss an opposing rational argument because we have no proof that we’re not just disembodied consciousness whose experiences are completely governed by some demon implanting them in our head, if there’s any reason for them at all. No, intelligibility is taken for granted everywhere (everywhere!) except when we start to argue God. Then everyone becomes a solipsist and it’s okay to say we can’t really rely on our rational faculties at all.

I think there shouldn’t be any gap in the argument for existence of God. The fact that we cannot prove that the external world exist shows that the main premises is subject to doubt.

Sorry for the rant. Arguments for God start from the position that the world is an intelligible place and that human experience is causally related to the universe. And arguments for God are hardly unique for taking that starting position, if I might say so. It’s not an extreme position to take. Furthermore, an argument for God is not a proof in the sense of something that is scientifically falsifiable. It’s something closer to a mathematical proof. It’s not proven wrong by new evidence, it’s proven wrong by finding an error in the logic that led to the answer. Of course, metaphysical inquiry is not as bound by as tight rules as mathematics, which gives more room for doubt for any argument and prevailing opposing views. Still, unless you’re committed to denying reason an intelligibility of the universe in all other fields, it seems like a reasoned argument against it is in order rather than just an out of hand dismissal.

I think that I already discuss the necessity of providing a proof for existence of universe before we can proceed further and try to show that God exists because the universe exists.

I’m not sure how much effort I want to put into defending the fine-tuning argument. It’s not entirely without merit, but it’s hardly something that can be convincing as a stand-alone argument. But simply stated, I hardly know how “We simply don’t know if there are other universes” and “We also don’t know whether the life on Earth is the only possible form of life” are relevant to the point being made. The fine-tuning argument does not assume only one universe and only one possible mode of organic life, the same way there is not only one way to build a pocket watch. Still, you don’t expect a fully operational pocket watch of any sort to just wash up on the beach someday and discover it was put together by entirely “natural” processes of nature.

---

I’ve been itching to speak more about the Ontological Argument for some time now, and this topic is a great opportunity. Unfortunately, I just don’t know when I’ll ever have the time.

I don’t think that I am missing anything. There could be other form of lives if the basic parameters of the universe are something else. Do you have any proof or evidence to show the opposite.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is not correct. The entire field of science is based on the fact that the behavior of the subject matter is reasonable and intelligible…

WWI was unreasonable and unintelligible. The history of WWI is part of the history of the universe. Murders of innocent children, playing in the street or in a playground, are unreasonable. they are part of the history of the universe.

 

[Tomdstone]

We already discussed this and conclude that, the fact that the universe has a beginning and the fact that there is not point before beginning means that the universe cannot have a temporal cause.

Sorry, but many scientists adhere to the theory that the universe did not have a beginning. You say it is a fact, but it is only an opinion that the universe had a beginning. A fact is something that is indisputably the case. It is disputed that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Tomdstone]

Everything we know has reasons for being. There are no counter-examples.

Can you explain the reason why God allowed the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake and volcano eruption, in which 100,000 people painfully died? Why did God allow six million jews to die painfully in Nazi Germany concentration camps? If the universe is governed by natural laws, what were the natural laws that allowed this evil and many other evil things such as children being gunned down as they are playing ball.

 

[STT]

Sorry, but many scientists adhere to the theory that the universe did not have a beginning. You say it is a fact, but it is only an opinion that the universe had a beginning. A fact is something that is indisputably the case. It is disputed that the universe had a beginning.

Hence the universe has no cause.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you explain the reason why God allowed the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake and volcano eruption, in which 100,000 people painfully died? Why did God allow six million jews to die painfully in Nazi Germany concentration camps? If the universe is governed by natural laws, what were the natural laws that allowed this evil and many other evil things such as children being gunned down as they are playing ball.

Tom-

No, of course we cannot explain these things. We’re not God.

And that’s the point. Because we are NOT God, we are not really in a position to say whether there were adequate reasons for allowing these things to happen from His vantage point.

Despite the fact that they look indefensible from our perspective, it is still reasonable to accept that these events may look very different from God’s point of view and that He is privy to information about them that we cannot possibly know.

Consequently, we cannot simply say, “Well, if I were God, I would have done things differently” because we are NOT God and cannot possibly imagine what it must be like to BE God. (He’s not simply a bigger version of us, for example.) For this reason, we would be wise to give an all-knowing and all-loving being the benefit of the doubt.

 

[IWantGod]

The entire field of science is based on the fact that the behaviour of the subject matter is reasonable and intelligible.

At most the evidence would show us that the universe has no physical cause.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom-

No, of course we cannot explain these things. We’re not God.

And that’s the point. Because we are NOT God, we are not really in a position to say whether there were adequate reasons for allowing these things to happen from His vantage point.

Despite the fact that they look indefensible from our perspective, it is still reasonable to accept that these events may look very different from God’s point of view and that He is privy to information about them that we cannot possibly know.

Consequently, we cannot simply say, “Well, if I were God, I would have done things differently” because we are NOT God and cannot possibly imagine what it must be like to BE God. (He’s not simply a bigger version of us, for example.) For this reason, we would be wise to give an all-knowing and all-loving being the benefit of the doubt.

It is an assumption that these events have a natural cause, but I don’t see the experimental evidence which supports this opinion. Some will view the universe as partly chaotic, and random, with the possibility that some events do not have a natural cause.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For this reason, we would be wise to give an all-knowing and all-loving being the benefit of the doubt.

That benefit of the doubt has been “exhausted” during the millennia, when God had ample opportunities to interfere on behalf the victims, but did not do it.

I see no logical problem with the assumption of a deistic, indifferent creator. There is nothing to support it, but there is nothing to contradict it either. The idea of a “loving” creator is irrational if you simply observe the actual state of affairs. And the defense of: “we don’t know everything, therefore we should assume the best” is irrational. We never know “everything”, therefore we always form our opinions based upon the available information - while stipulating that if we receive additional information, we must be ready to discard our erroneous judgment. The “ball” is in God’s court, if he wants to enlighten us, we must be ready to change our “verdict”. But not until them.