It is reasonable to believe God exists

John_C_87

@Happy_Killbot ;

Suppose the universe created itself, due to the topology of time-space branching off and curving back on itself?

Time and Space are the same things explained with different principles of mathematics would be a kind of Big clue. Places hand back on MIB neuralyzer, some people have a hard time with basic math explained in the most complicated and complex way it could be explained.

Wait! is that a made-up word, neuralyzer. Dumb freedom of the press to used to address the grievance and not charge for entertainment. How dare you.

ZeusAres42

Regressiveluddite said:

Hello all. I am new to this debate website. I am still trying to figure out this format, it's quite different from what I'm used to. I'm probably doing this all wrong, so please forgive me.

Anyway, I thought I would do a quick, casual "debate" to get started.

Today's topic is simple. That is it is reasonable to believe God exists.

I will present one major argument, and all detractors and naysayers are welcome.

P1. Everything which began to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

P3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

This is not my personal favorite argument but it is one I still like, and I believe it goes through. A quick overview of the premises.

P1. Nothing cannot bring about something. Nothing, by definition, is not anything. It is the absence of being. Nothing has no properties, nothing has no causal power. P1 is a metaphysical truth, with constant confirmation from our inference.

P2. The scientific evidence strongly suggest the universe had a beginning. The BGV theorem maintains that any universe which is expanding (our own) had a beginning in the finite past. The second law of thermodynamics would render an eternal universe impossible, given the tendency of closed systems to always increase in entropy. There are also good philosophical reasons to believe the past is finite.

P3. Since the universe is the sum totality of time space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God.

Thank you all, hopefully that is not too long.

@Regressiveluddite

Anyway, time to look at this argument a bit more closely. The argument is:

P1. Everything which began to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

P3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Implied based on these premises and on the other bits mentioned in the post)

If we were to accept the P3 as the conclusion from the preceding premises as well as accept those preceding premises as true then the argument isn't fallacious as everything follows. The fallacy is in concluding that God must exist based on all of those preceding premises. Even if the Universe does have a cause there is nothing to say we can immediately conclude that the cause must be God. 

Furthermore, I noticed that I missed a bit of discussion between you and happy_killbot which went as follows:

"Lastly, your final point that said everything requires a cause, therefore God requires a cause. I believe is a misunderstanding of the argument.

Remember the P1 said everything that began to exist had a cause. God did not begin to exist, by definition God is (in Latin) a se. He exists outside of and beyond any other thing, and gave existence to everything else. And does not require a cause."

This bit could be a case of special pleading. I think a potentially stronger way of stating your argument might have been if you had said:

"Everything that is material that exists has a cause. The Universe is a material thing that exists and therefore must have a cause that is immaterial. And that immaterial cause must be God."

However, I did notice you said in your original post for clarity:

"P3. Since the universe is the sum totality of time-space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time. We reason this Cause is God."

So this does kind of let you off the hook of making the special pleading fallacy. As your general rule for everything is only applied to everything material which I did infer in the first place anyway, and of which I think you implied. It doesn't however, let you off the hook from making any fallacies at all.

Dee

@SkepticalOne

Yes I get all that if one is claiming a cause , be he named his “cause “ as in ..... P3. Since the universe is the sum totality of time space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time.

But he added 

 We reason this Cause is God.

I’m addressing his argument not what others state a cause is or is not 

SkepticalOne

Dee said:

@SkepticalOne

Yes I get all that if one is claiming a cause , be he named his “cause “ as in ..... P3. Since the universe is the sum totality of time space and matter, a cause of the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, and outside time.

But he added 

 We reason this Cause is God.

I’m addressing his argument not what others state a cause is or is not 

Can I use the same argument and name my cause "Bob"? 

If it makes you feel better, I would object to the defense as well. What does it mean for something to be immaterial, spaceless, and timeless? For all we know that may be a perfect description of "nothing".

Dee

***Can I use the same argument and name my cause "Bob"? 

You can but the argument would again be special pleading 

***If it makes you feel better, I would object to the defense as well.

It’s not about me or me feeling better , I just did what you claimed you would do as that’s the very defence he used 

 ****What does it mean for something to be immaterial, spaceless, and timeless? For all we know that may be a perfect description of "nothing".

Yes agreed 

Normal_1

If the cause was sufficient to bring about the effect, and the cause was there for all eternity, then the effect should have been there for all eternity.

But if the universe began, and was brought about by said cause at ***a certain point***, one must logically reason that the cause ***chose*** to bring about the effect.

An immaterial power that has a will to choose...

That sounds compellingy like God.@Regressiveluddite

Good argument, however, the problem I have with it is that it is a "conditional" argument. You used the word "if" twice in your statement and your "compelling" conclusion was based on those hypothetical "ifs".

Even if one were to accept the hypothetical "ifs" I think it is wrong t assume that there could only be one conclusion.
The use the word "God" I think is quite often used as a "cover all for all occasions, in other words, to define the unknown cause. Whereas, for the purpose of this discussion and the forum itself we do have a clear definition:
 "God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith".