Defining God

[Embright]

We all have ideas of God, for better or for worse, but perhaps the reason we have so much conflict is that the idea of God is based upon an improper construction. So let us being anew.

Let's define omnipotence as being all powerful.
Let's define God as whatever has the attribute of omnipotence.
Let's define omniscience as being all knowing.
Since God is omnipotent, God can grant himself omniscience.

So can God be both omnipotent and omniscient?

Query: If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what he is going to do, but if he cannot change this he is not omnipotent. If he can he is not omniscient and therefore not omnipotent as well.

Thus God cannot be what we define him to be as. So this version of God is impossible. If we create a "lesser" version of God, then he is not God.

So here we sit at the crux of the problem. We cannot know what this "God" is. We cannot know anything about God unless we forgo logic (i.e. redefine omnipotence to include the impossible such as drawing a square circle). If we forgo logic then what we say past that is nonsensical.

My point is that we cannot construct anything above us. If we do it is futile by design and this is perhaps all we can know. Just as a dog cannot perceive the complexity of our intelligence compared to its own, we cannot perceive anything above us. This leads me to believe faith in a higher being is the only logically correct alternative a person can pursue other than agnosticism. I cannot explain to my dog why the road is dangerous, he cannot comprehend it. My dog will simply have to learn (or not) through lessons I try to teach it. Such is how I believe whatever exists above us treats us.

The question I have to those who are atheists is such:
1. How can you claim my God doesn't exist when you cannot understand him?
2. Why isn't Nihilism the only conclusion to your world view?

I do not mean any disrespect to all of you, I understand the world is a harsh place and life is unfair. I know some of you have parents, siblings, spouses, and friends who have seemingly needlessly suffered or died. What I am saying is some people do not believe in god for these things. They don't believe in god because why would he allow 800,000 people to be slaughtered in Rwanda, let the millions die in WW2, let the spanish flu kill 50 to 100 million people, or let even one innocent person die. The lists goes on about how could god allow world poverty and hunger, or more specifically god ordering homosexuals to be killed. This god that wants all these things to happen, I do not believe in him either. I do not know why these things happen, but I do believe God has a purpose for us that we cannot yet comprehend.

 

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

The debate about God's attributes is endless. Look at things like Molinism, Open Theism, etc. There's all sorts of schools of thought. Probably because of, along the lines of what you say, it's fundamentally impossible for us to understand something above us. That's actually the Biblical answer to the "Why bad things happen" question. It's what God told Job when he asked it.

"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 'Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding'"."

So, we simply won't understand. This is obviously unsatisfying for us, but what are we going to do? Many chose not to believe. That's their prerogative, I guess.

 

[Skeleon]

The thing is not that there is a thing which we don't comprehend. I don't see it.

A dog would see the road. A dog would see a human behaving in a certain way. It might not understand either of those things, but it would be able to see them happen or be nonetheless. It might come up with a "solution" as to why things are the way they are (even though they might be false), just like people in ancient Greece might've found the "solution" to lightning that is Zeus. That does not make said solution right, though.

And if the dog developed further, it might, finally, come up with the true answer instead of accepting the "solution" without doubting it. What I'm trying to say here is, that faith with its undoubting nature will never find the true answers, whereas science, with its constant doubt, has at least the chance of helping us understand how the universe (or, to stay with the example, a road or lightning) works.

As for your questions:
1. I see no evidence that points towards your (or any other) God(s). And the fact that God is not disprovable makes me doubt the concept even more, since, in science, refutability is one of the most important aspects of experiments.
2. Because I am a specieist and place a high value on all human life. I wish to help advance my species, spread my genes (and protect those of family and friends). It is an internal biological drive that fills me with contentment and happiness. Yes, I do believe there is no intrinsic "sense of life". But I think that everybody can find their sense in life themselves.

 

[VargRaev]

Why does god have to be good? Being all knowing and all powerful does not bode well for lesser beings. God is nothing more than a kid with an ant farm who occasionally likes to flood out tunnels or use a magnifying glass on us.
So since you think we are soo superior to other animals, do you care about the lives of ants?

You almost took the words out of my mouth.

 

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

And if the dog developed further, it might, finally, come up with the true answer instead of accepting the "solution" without doubting it. What I'm trying to say here is, that faith with its undoubting nature will never find the true answers, whereas science, with its constant doubt, has at least the chance of helping us understand how the universe (or, to stay with the example, a road or lightning) works.

I don't think it's accurate to say that faith and science mutually exclusive things. There are plenty of religious scientists, so that is not it. Faith is something very different, and it need not be contradictory to "science", which is such a broad term.

Also, faith is not undoubting in nature. Quite the contrary, it's born from doubt. It's just what you decide to do with the doubts. Look no further than the man who's child was healed by Jesus in the New Testament. He pleaded, "Lord, I believe! Help thou mine unbelief!"

The faithful are not strangers to doubt. And neither is science, really. We have to put faith in it for it to work, right? Science assumes the universe is rational and testable and conducive to science itself, but can that be proven? Not really. So there's an element of faith no matter where we go. We just have to point it in a direction and come to grips with it.

 

[Zacharine]

Query: If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what he is going to do, but if he cannot change this he is not omnipotent. If he can he is not omniscient and therefore not omnipotent as well.

(Bolding mine.) I have a problem with this. This is a non-sequitur as far as I can see.

If something is omniscient, it will know the future. All the possible futures. Therefore, it can be omnipotent, because the consequences of any possible action is known beforehand, including inaction and removing its own powers.

In addition, if we think of omnipotence as an ability to go against all established future's, therefore 'breaking' the omniscience... Is it not possible that the moment that thought is made, the future becomes possible and is therefore known, without actually limiting anything in regards to power or ability to do something? Just like quantum wave-functions. The act of observing defines the outcome.

EDIT: I mean this in following manner: At every point in time, there are an infinite amount of possible actions for an omnipotent being. Being omniscient, it knows the result of every choice. Therefore it retains omnipotence because it has an infinity of options to choose from and therefore break the vision of future it has. But at the moment the action is contemplated, omniscience allows it to know the consequences. Therefore both omni remain as it can choose yet another previously unthought possibility.

 

[Skeleon]

I don't think it's accurate to say that faith and science mutually exclusive things. There are plenty of religious scientists, so that is not it. Faith is something very different, and it need not be contradictory to "science", which is such a broad term.

It is contradictory when dogma comes in the way of the scientific process of doubt. I admit that this is not only true for religion, though, it's also true for old (dogmatic) scientific ideas. Sometimes, new information is found but disregarded because the old folks stick to their ideas. It slows down progress just as much as religious dogma.

I'm glad that religion cannot influence science as much anymore. Think what happened to Galileo and many other scientists.
Think what would happen today.

Also, faith is not undoubting in nature. Quite the contrary, it's borne from doubt.

Then why would you accept information about a God, an afterlife, about history without any evidence to support them?

Science assumes the universe is rational and testable and conducive to science itself, but can that be proven? Not really.

Actually, I disagree with you there. Yes, it can't be fully proven. But evidence is produced. And it is produced, repeatedly. And as soon as anything is disproven, it is disregarded to make room for new hypotheses. Of course, you can never fully prove anything, but the fact that it's repeatable, refutable and follows certain principles that remain the same, allow for high certainty (until something better comes along).

 

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

If something is omniscient, it will know the future. All the possible futures. Therefore, it can be omnipotent, because the consequences of any possible action is known beforehand, including inaction and removing its own powers.

I always end up ignorantly screwing this up, but I think this is what the theologians call "Middle Knowledge"--that God knows everything, including what would happen if He acted differently than He does. It's a part of Molinism...I think...

 

[Malkavian]

And if the dog developed further, it might, finally, come up with the true answer instead of accepting the "solution" without doubting it. What I'm trying to say here is, that faith with its undoubting nature will never find the true answers, whereas science, with its constant doubt, has at least the chance of helping us understand how the universe (or, to stay with the example, a road or lightning) works.

Science is no more "the truth", than religion is. Science does get alot of brownie points for being more likely and, as you say yourselves, ready to constantly doubt itself and develop.
But in the end, it is not a sure truth. It is as much "belief" as religion is it, in that we will never know if anything we have learned tthrough science, is correct. Likely, yes, but not necessarily correct.


As for OP:
The problem with just defining God anew, is that you're essentially not talking of God if you do. Now, I will refute my own statement in a while, but: God must be one thing. You can define him all you want, but there will be X religions disagreeing with your definition. Why should yours be the right? Why should we work with your definition? It is not enough defining him, we must base our definition on observations and proof(when I say proof, it's just for the sake of argument.. I could go on and on about the impossibility of proof, and therefore, science's failed premises), or we can't define anything at all. It would just be a very metaphorical argument, and we would be none the wiser on what God is.
The second, and most annoying problem, is this: Why do you assume that God is bound by any limits, that we construct?
Sure, there is a logical problem in being omnipotence and omniscient at the same time, but surely, if there's a being to which that sort of logical paradox doesn't apply, then it's God. In fact, nothing probably applies to God. He is(now I start defining him, which is really a problem... But for the sake of the argument) not like anything. The relation between dog/man is not, by far the same as man/God. God is something that cannot be explained, and that's the point. He is the deus ex machina of the play that is our world. He can and cannot do every/anything. Any discussion about him or his ways, what he can and cannot, will never get anywhere, because he is whatever we need him to be, and therefore, not universal. And at the same time, his very concept and being is universal. It's not just in the way that religions can't agree on his characteristics, but in the fact that one thing that all religions agree on, is that he is beyond our understanding, and not bound by any laws that apply to us.

I hope I make sense.


EDIT:

Of course, you can never fully prove anything, but the fact that it's repeatable, refutable and follows certain principles that remain the same, allow for high certainty (until something better comes along).

I like what you added in the paranthesis It is excactly what goes to show that we can't ever know that science has proven anything. At many points has a scientific idea been overturned, since new technology and new minds has found a completely different and much more likely answer - but it wasn't like beffore scienists would go "Well, it's an idea, but I think we'll come across a better answer later". It was accepted as the answer. We thought we knew something. And then we got smarter.
As long as we accept that we might not be right, that there might be a better answer, then we also have to accept that we may never eb certain of anything and, as you say, never fully prove anything, not ust because we have limitations, but also because we have to accept that no matter how likely an answer seems, it might be wrong.
It's not just a thing that applies to science, though. It applies to everything we think we know.

 

[Anacortian]

Why does god have to be good? Being all knowing and all powerful does not bode well for lesser beings. God is nothing more than a kid with an ant farm who occasionally likes to flood out tunnels or use a magnifying glass on us.
So since you think we are soo superior to other animals, do you care about the lives of ants?

To the original poster: Thomas Aquinas put-forth that the logically imposable is not within the realm of omnipotence. Hence God's inability to make a three-sided square is not a limit to his power but an expression of his reason.

An intrinsic omnipotence and omniscience are not mutually exclusive. In fact they imply on another. One errs where one tries to put a timeline on the virtues of the Being outside of time. There was never any instant in time where God was one and not the other. God always IS (thus the name by which the Israelites called Him). When speaking of God intrinsically, one should be careful to only use the present tense. He never was and never will be; He simply IS. For convenience and clarity, however, one usually conjugates verbage when speaking of God's actions as they directly affect history, but God remains constant.

So ends the theological.

To the quoted poster: God has to be good for it could only be from Him that we could have a standard for good. The very statement that God could be evil betrays in the speaker an implicit acceptance that there is an objective, moral standard for good and that evil is an absence of that good.

The analogy of the ants is inadequate for we did not create the ants nor did we give them a will that could be contrary to our own. Man is superior to animals, but man is not God to animals. We are simply not existence itself but, with the ant, derive our existence as creatures from our Creator.

Likewise, man is not to God what ants are to man. An ant cannot fathom the designs of man nor knowingly move to oppose man. Man has been given the ability to grasp both God and at least His more overt actions. Man knows God in a completely different way than an ant could ever know man.

So ends the apologetic.

Give me something to be ecumenical about, and I can call my dance card filled.

 

[Zacharine]

If something is omniscient, it will know the future. All the possible futures. Therefore, it can be omnipotent, because the consequences of any possible action is known beforehand, including inaction and removing its own powers.

I always end up ignorantly screwing this up, but I think this is what the theologians call "Middle Knowledge"--that God knows everything, including what would happen if He acted differently than He does. It's a part of Molinism...I think...

You are correct - thought Luis de Molina's argument began from an attempt to reconcile omniscience of God with human free will. It did come up with the three categories of knowledge.

First being God's knowledge of necessary truths. So called logical truth, sometimes referred to logical axioms, considered to be independend from God's will. Statements like, "X cannot be A and non-A at the same time, in the same way, at the same place" or "Everything is what it is and cannot be what it isn't".

The second set of knowledge is God's free knowledge. This knowledge consists of contingent truths, reliant upon God's will or facts that God brings about and God does not actually have to bring about. "God created the earth" would be this type of 'factual' knowledge. (remember, he lived during the 16th century and was a Jesuit theologian)

The third kind is scientia media or middle knowledge and describes things that are contingently true, but are independent of God. These are truths that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary cause. "If I had picked up the coin from the other side of the street instead of walking by, I would have been late for the party," is an example of middle knowledge. I did not cross the street and pick up the coin, so God is not invoked as a cause. Walking by is not required to be a better or more logical option, so it is contingent if true.

 

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

It is contradictory when dogma comes in the way of the scientific process of doubt. I admit that this is not only true for religion, though, it's also true for old (dogmatic) scientific ideas. Sometimes, new information is found but disregarded because the old folks stick to their ideas. It slows down progress just as much as religious dogma.

I'm glad that religion cannot influence science as much anymore. Think what happened to Galileo and many other scientists.
Think what would happen today.

I actually agree in part with this. Dogmatism is always the enemy of progress. But being dogmatic is not something exclusive to the religious. Just read Richard Dawkins--dogma incarnate.

When people stop trying to force religion, and Christianity in particular, into making scientific claims (which it rarely, if ever, does) then the problem is largely eliminated and the result is quite liberating. I'm looking at the Creationists here. They've done more damage to Christianity than any atheist ever could.

However, I believe your latter comment is inaccurate. I won't cite any polls or statistics or anything, as those are always suspect, but there are far more religious people in academia than any would have imagined merely 50 years ago. This is mostly a result of the death of logical positivism, which rapidly went out of vogue in the 1950s. Academia's best kept secret is that it's become more religious when it was supposedly "common sense" that religious belief would die out in the face of "progress."

Then why would you accept information about a God, an afterlife, about history without any evidence to support them?

Who said there was no evidence to support it? I never did. I actually think there's far greater evidence for God, the afterlife, etc. (it all goes hand in hand) than for the negative. Faith is not belief in spite of evidence. It's taking a "leap" into something that cannot ever be "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's the very definition of faith. And atheists have it too, in spite of the protests, because belief in anything that's ultimately unprovable (be it positive or negative) is faith.

But that said, I've analyzed the evidence and I think it favors God quite decisively. But of course this varies from person to person.

Actually, I disagree with you there. Yes, it can't be fully proven. But evidence is produced. And it is produced, repeatedly. And as soon as anything is disproven, it is disregarded to make room for new hypotheses. Of course, you can never fully prove anything, but the fact that it's repeatable, refutable and follows certain principles that remain the same, allow for high certainty (until something better comes along).

Evidence is produced, this is true. But the problem is that science cannot prove itself. That's a Catch-22, if you'll excuse the phrase. "Science has been scientifically proven to be true!" doesn't really carry much weight. Even if it "looks" like it produces good evidence. The frightening reality is that science cannot comment on some things. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows fundamental, incomprehensible uncertainty at the base of quantum physics. Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that mathematics can be turned in on itself like a self-eating snake. Science is certainly not the be-all, end-all that it is made out to be. That is my main point.

Thanks for your response and your civility.

 

[Zacharine]

Science is no more "the truth", than religion is. Science does get alot of brownie points for being more likely and, as you say yourselves, ready to constantly doubt itself and develop.
But in the end, it is not a sure truth. It is as much "belief" as religion is it, in that we will never know if anything we have learned tthrough science, is correct. Likely, yes, but not necessarily correct.

No, no, no. Here you are conflating two different meanings to word 'belief'.

I believe the brakes on my car will work.
I believe God created the world in six days.

Same word, but the inherent meaning behind it has subtly changed. For the first statement we have repeatable tests and experiences. The second is based on faith and no evidence. The second is, in essence, an assertion not backed by anything but asserters wish for it to be so.

While I agree with your post, discounting the fact that you seem to imply that not having an eternal truth is somehow bad, this mistake should be corrected. Science does produce results and since the likelyhood of an human assertion being the eternal truth is lim 0, science is almost infinately more propable to give us the truth of things, even if it is only partial truth.

Also, I personally would care to believe things that are true and not ones that are convenient or emotionally easier to believe in. This means that any absolute truth is inherently impossible, if for nothing else than quantum uncertainty.

 

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

Molinism!

Ah, very interesting! Thanks for the post. I generally get frustrated with the omniscience/omnipotence thing, as it's more than my feeble mind can handle. Your post actually helps alot.

 

[Zacharine]

Molinism!

Ah, very interesting! Thanks for the post. I generally get frustrated with the omniscience/omnipotence thing, as it's more than my feeble mind can handle. Your post actually helps alot.

Glad to be of help. I know how frustrating these things can be, I used several years of my time to ponder these things.

It's not really omniscience and omnipotence that are difficult to deal with. Some unconvetional thought might be required and learning a bit of logic and theological arguments, but that's about it.

It's when you add 'eternal love', 'non-misleading' or 'source of morality' to this thing that problems really begin to occur.

 

[Malkavian]

Science is no more "the truth", than religion is. Science does get alot of brownie points for being more likely and, as you say yourselves, ready to constantly doubt itself and develop.
But in the end, it is not a sure truth. It is as much "belief" as religion is it, in that we will never know if anything we have learned tthrough science, is correct. Likely, yes, but not necessarily correct.

No, no, no. Here you are conflating two different meanings to word 'belief'.

I believe the brakes on my car will work.
I believe God created the world in six days.

Same word, but the inherent meaning behind it has subtly changed. For the first statement we have repeatable tests and experiences. The second is based on faith and no evidence. The second is, in essence, an assertion not backed by anything but asserters wish for it to be so.

While I agree with your posts, discounting the fact that you seem to imply that not having an eternal truth is somehow bad, this mistake should be corrected. Science does produce results and since the likelyhood of an human assertion being the eternal truth is lim 0, science is almost infinately more propable to give us the truth of things, even if it is only partial truth.

Also, I personally would care to believe things that are true and not ones that are convenient or emotionally easier to believe in. This means that any absolute truth is inherently impossible, if for nothing else than quantum uncertainty.

Ah, I see what you're going at, but I respectfully disagree, at a principal level. I believe, for lack of better word, in science. But at a fundemental level, it is no more "true" than God.
Yes, science can back it's theories up with "evidence", but it might still be as wrong. Many a scientific theory has had plenty of evidence behind it, only to be replaced by a different answer, later on. What that tells us, is that we can't be sure of the answers. We choose to "believe in them". Sure, there's a good likelyhood, what, with all the evicence and such. But is evidence all that seperates religion from science?
For there are loads of religious evidence. There are historical records, there are "signs", and there is existence itself, that Science can't really explain satisfactory, at least not to my knowledge. in fact, when it comes to existence, religion really has got the more likely explanation, if only because it is coherent within it's own logic.

I don't know. On the other hand, it has to be said that science produces results. I couldn't claim that I didn't live my life according and influenced by scientific answers at every level. I'm not a religious man. I'm not a scientist either. But I know we have to have faith in that the results science make, are correct. Else, how could I live in the modern world, if I didn't trust science? I couldn't drive a car, I couldn't take medication, I could nothing.
But I feel it's important, at a principal level, to acknowledge that science knows nothing. It's got nothing "right".

Again, I hope I make sense. It's early morning(well, actually it's 1 pm), and I have slept very little.

 

[Skeleon]

As long as we accept that we might not be right, that there might be a better answer, then we also have to accept that we may never eb certain of anything and, as you say, never fully prove anything, not ust because we have limitations, but also because we have to accept that no matter how likely an answer seems, it might be wrong.

Yes, but that's exactly my point. Science is willing to do that.
Religion isn't. Most of the time (I know, I know, the Pope finally admitted that the Earth is round, but he took his sweet time).
Only through this doubt I keep going on about can we make true progress.

I'm looking at the Creationists here. They've done more damage to Christianity than any atheist ever could.

Oh, I fully agree with you there. I have nothing against religion itself, my problem is (and always has been) the influence it takes on worldly and/or scientific matters. Which is mostly a thing the religious institution, not the religion itself, is responsible for.
I believe religion should be a completely personal thing, which unfortunately it isn't.

I won't cite any polls or statistics or anything, as those are always suspect, but there are far more religious people in academia than any would have imagined merely 50 years ago.

I honestly don't know anything about that, but a) it doesn't matter to me as long as (I repeat myself) dogma doesn't get in the way of the scientific method and b) it might be different depending on the part of the world you live in.

Who said there was no evidence to support it? I never did. I actually think there's far greater evidence for God, the afterlife, etc. (it all goes hand in hand) than for the negative.

Hm, well, let's say there's no scientific evidence and be done with it. Because this...

But of course this varies from person to person.

...I think we can all agree on.

And atheists have it too, in spite of the protests, because belief in anything that's ultimately unprovable (be it positive or negative) is faith.

Nobody says they don't believe in anything. Without belief in, say, stability, one would go mad. But those kinds of faith are based on empirical experience. My house stood in the same spot last week as it does today. I think I can rightfully believe it to be there next week as well. Of course there's no certainty, anything might happen in the meantime. They all are kinds of belief, but the basis for them is quite different I'd say.

Evidence is produced, this is true. But the problem is that science cannot prove itself. That's a Catch-22, if you'll excuse the phrase. "Science has been scientifically proven to be true!" doesn't really carry much weight. Even if it "looks" like it produces good evidence.

True, true, but it's still better than faith, because it reliably works within specified parameters. There's always a margin of error involved, of course, but (hey, I'm drawing a circle) we find a certain stability in the results they produce. New test-methods are compared to old ones, new drugs to placebo or gold standard, everything is built on top of a basis which itself was built on empirical evidence or theoretical background. Obviously there'll be mistakes, but still, it's a system that works to better itself through doubt, comparison, testing, disregarding and theorizing. Whereas faith, well, excuse the harshness, but it's stagnant.

The frightening reality is that science cannot comment on some things.

True again, but personally I believe that we will find those answers if we keep looking. And I don't think that filling the gaps without evidence is the right thing to do. We should acknowledge the gaps in our knowledge and keep on trying.

Science is certainly not the be-all, end-all that it is made out to be. That is my main point.

Not yet. But we're working on it. ;-)

Thanks for your response and your civility.

My pleasure and back at you.
I always enjoy discussions like this if they are kept flame-free.

 

[Soxafloppin]

This is my opinion. (dont be offended)

God did not create man.

Man created god, as way to explain things that in that time, where unexplainable. We have science now.

 

[Tyrannowalefish_Rex]

Ah, I see what you're going at, but I respectfully disagree, at a principal level. I believe, for lack of better word, in science. But at a fundemental level, it is no more "true" than God.
Yes, science can back it's theories up with "evidence", but it might still be as wrong. Many a scientific theory has had plenty of evidence behind it, only to be replaced by a different answer, later on.

It's seldom replaced, but there often happens to be a superior answer that's more precise.

What that tells us, is that we can't be sure of the answers. We choose to "believe in them". Sure, there's a good likelyhood, what, with all the evicence and such. But is evidence all that seperates religion from science?
For there are loads of religious evidence. There are historical records, there are "signs", and there is existence itself, that Science can't really explain satisfactory, at least not to my knowledge. in fact, when it comes to existence, religion really has got the more likely explanation, if only because it is coherent within it's own logic.

I would like to know something about these "historical records" you speak of. It is pretty much consensus that there is no such thing as objective history to begin with. It's subjective and selective. Religion is mostly a human construct (if hypothetically inspired by god) and is dependent on human discovery and science lest it becomes ridiculous by lack of a healthy doubt. So how is there the more coherent logic in it than in science?

 

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

Hm, well, let's say there's no scientific evidence and be done with it.

Well, I think the Big Bang is about as scientific as you can get, and that screams God out loud. The presentation of that theory caused a firestorm because too many scientists thought that if the universe were proven to have a beginning, that would logically entail God as the causer. That's why a multitude of them followed people like Fred Hoyle to the Steady State Theory of the universe. That one remained largely popular (in spite of lack of evidence) until the 1960s when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered Cosmic Background Radiation, basically proving the Big Bang. Or as close to "proving" as you can get.

If you format the argument like William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument, I think it makes perfect sense.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Since premise 2 has been established, most unbelievers have had to shift their ground considerably in the face of science. Some, like Daniel Dennett, deny premise 1 outright, but that seems very unscientific to me. Others will deny 2 with theories like the Oscillating Model of the Universe and so on, but none of those other theories are especially compelling and have only minority support. I think this points overwhelmingly to God, but, as we've established:

But of course this varies from person to person.

Heh, unfortunately true, maybe?

Nobody says they don't believe in anything. Without belief in, say, stability, one would go mad. But those kinds of faith are based on empirical experience. My house stood in the same spot last week as it does today. I think I can rightfully believe it to be there next week as well. Of course there's no certainty, anything might happen in the meantime. They all are kinds of belief, but the basis for them is quite different I'd say.

I do agree with this, but the warrant for belief in stability, in this instance, is different than for religious belief. I don't want to stray from the issue here. We all have the same evidence, and we must take the leap of faith into either atheism or theism.

These other things have different circumstances, so I'm not sure they're quite relevant.

True, true, but it's still better than faith, because it reliably works within specified parameters. There's always a margin of error involved, of course, but (hey, I'm drawing a circle) we find a certain stability in the results they produce. New test-methods are compared to old ones, new drugs to placebo or gold standard, everything is built on top of a basis which itself was built on empirical evidence or theoretical background. Obviously there'll be mistakes, but still, it's a system that works to better itself through doubt, comparison, testing, disregarding and theorizing. Whereas faith, well, excuse the harshness, but it's stagnant.

Ouch! Hah, just kidding. I don't think faith is stagnant. At least the Christian faith has evolved considerably in its history, while still maintaining the same basic principles. Operating continually under the assumption "God exists" is just the same as operating continually under the assumption that He doesn't. I don't think either one should be considered "stagnant" and retrogressive compared to the sciences.

My pleasure and back at you.
I always enjoy discussions like this if they are kept flame-free.

Yes indeed. I'm very pleased with this thread since it's abstained from the flaming so far.

There is hope yet for humanity!