Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[JWeinCom]

WolfpackN64 said:

JWeinCom said:

Well, the conclusion of the argument definitely says the being is god.  So, it's definitely not valid as you presented it.  If we agree on that then ok.

Taking god out of the equation and ending at necessary being, the argument would be valid, but I don't think it's demonstrated to be sound.  It's based on the assumption that we can apply what is the case in our experience of the universe (cause and effect)and apply it to a novel situation (the universe prior to the big bang).  I would say at best the argument can lead to "something other than contingent things exist".  I don't think you can really get any further than that through deduction, and even that is somewhat shaky.  

And, of course, I would reject revelation as a meaningful argument out of hand, because using revelation to prove god would be begging the question, assuming your definition of revelation is the Bible. 

So when combining all of those factors, I don't think the cosmological argument (even if you combine the deductive and inductive parts) really offers a very compelling argument for the existence of god. 

Well, the probability of a necessary being or event goes a long way of course. As for revelation, I meant that both in the biblical sense as in the historical sense (the various events where people experienced revelation). Revelation in the personal sense would be a form of abduction, since you take God as an inference to the best explanation for an experience.

We haven't established any sort of probability. As we have agreed the cosmological argument is deductive.  It is either true or false.  If we can't confirm or deny the argument, we can't make any claim about it's probability.   We can say it's not impossible, but that's about it.

As for revelation, if I believe in revelation, then that puts me in an awkward spot.  Because if I accept revelation from Christians, I'd also have to accept Muslim revelation.  Hindu revelation, Satanist revelation, and really any kind of weird personal claim anybody makes.  So unless there is a particularly good reason to accept Christian revelation, which I've never been provided with, I can't take revelation as evidence.

As for your repeated insistence that atheists have a burden of proof, no.  If they want to claim that god definitely doesn't exist, then yes, but that's not what I've seen people in this thread say.  You're trying to strawman them because the antitheist position is much easier to attack.

It is basically impossible to prove a negative.  To repeat an example I gave earlier, if I said I had a unicorn in my apartment right now, you would be completely unable to disprove it.  But I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me.  You would not believe me unless I could offer some kind of proof.  And that's what we're doing.