Yes, because, nothing comes out of nothing. — SpaceDweller

Old argument which cannot be proven.
For another perspective look at Leibniz's argument that God could have left the universe is a state of nothingness but thought existence was superior. I am not supporting this argument but he does give a reason why God rejected nothingness.

The OP clearly states what I mean by the design argument.
The argument by design briefly is that the universe is like a machine; machines have intelligent designers; like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God.

No one owns a copyright on "design argument" so if you decide that phrase means something else, fine. — Art48

The problem of infinite regress. If you use the logic of design then the question is who designed the designer.

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science — Skalidris

Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular.

There's no objective reason to believe nothingesss expected, but theists believe the material world is contingent - exists only because God chose to create it. — Relativist

Yes, that could be a belief of theists.

Similarly, why does it not need to be caused? Is there not equal reason to argue either viewpoint logically? — Benj96

Perhaps, but I do not think so. The universe exists, we know that. Whether it has a cause is not as certain.

Can you elaborate on how? — Benj96

Why does it need to be caused?

Can something ever be self-causing? — Benj96

The universe can exist without being caused.

We're hallucinating all the time, eventhough unconsciously. For example, matter is, in reality, made up of parts which we hallucinate to be continuous. — Hillary

Not a hallucination, We don't see it as continuous, just imagine it.

A thousand apologies. — Agent Smith

It is fine to discuss your interests. I was only referring to proofs of God failing to prove anything.

I was looking at God's relevance from a moral perspective, not without good reason: A favorite question of atheists (to theists): Are you good only because God exists? — Agent Smith

This is not my question nor topic of thread. But discussion of your interests is fine.

Purely deductive arguments are non-ampliative.
So, if a purely deductive argument is put forth to prove that G's exists, then it's begging the question.

@Jackson, feel free to correct me if I misread. — jorndoe

No, you did not misread.

My God, man! What else did Hegel divulge to you? — jgill

Some of us actually read philosophy. Not you, eh.

A new and pathetic low on TPF — jgill

You will be ignored from now on.

If a God were all knowing and all powerful and had no wish to be discovered than they never will be. — TiredThinker

If God exists and does not want to be discovered, then there is nothing to talk about.

Your "proof" depends on the assumption that, in the absence of a god, nothingness should be expected. — Relativist

Why is nothingness expected?

That depends on the theocracy. — Hillary

What theocratic government has been successful?

atheocracy — Hillary

Because theocracy never works.

Why are state and religion separated in the first place? — Hillary

To prevent theocracy.

Then why not believe? Because there's no evidence? The circle is closed. — Hillary

I do not know what "the circle is closed" means.

How can there be evidence for gods? — Hillary

Yes, I am saying there is not evidence.

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence. The existence of life or the notion of 'something rather than nothing', is not evidence of anything in particular. — Tom Storm

Agree with that.

1. We expect our government to make decisions based on our moral values
2. Moral values are often shaped both implicitly and explicitly by one's religious values (or lack of)
3. Thus the government's decisions are shaped by religious values — Paulm12

Moral values are "often" shaped by religion, But where do religious values come from? That is the unanswered question.

Issues with No. 2 are motives behind scriptures since we know scriptures are man made texts, what were their motives, divine revelation or ancient wisdom is beyond our ability to prove. — SpaceDweller

Bad metaphysics. They made existence into a question.

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed! — SpaceDweller

Yes, agree.

Hegel brought this to my attention. The ancient greeks asked what the nature of God is. The Christians (Moderns) made God into a proposition about whether God exists or not.

what? how? — SpaceDweller

God explains why there is existence.

the meaning here is that, God is a superior being, a superior being mean there is no grater because if it is then a being that is grater is God rather than inferior being. — SpaceDweller

As Plato would say, it is good to be good. God is the Platonic idea.

I think existing is better than not existing is subjective because:
A person having trouble living life will favor non existence, while a person living in welfare will favor existence. — SpaceDweller

Yes, agree with that argument.

Theological arguments assume existence must have a cause.

My favorite is Anselm's argument. — SpaceDweller

That than which nothing greater can be conceived.

But also, the falacious argument that existing is better than not existing, there fore God exists.

Or you can take a Jordan Peterson approach, which is interesting but also cheating. — bert1

What is that?

Proofs for God were used by early Church theologians to get people to convert to their religion. Now, why would they want--force--others to convert?

Also, imagine thinking up and building a world where all the living creatures hunt and kill other living creatures to live. Why build suffering and torment into all lifeforms when you could do it any way you wanted. — Tom Storm

If God is powerful and could prevent suffering then he is cruel.
If God is not powerful and cannot prevent suffering then he is impotent.

Hey, I agree with you. I'll be reading to see if others see it differently. — javra

Good times.

would it then be properly conceived of as alive/animate/organic, dead, inanimate and perfectly fixed (as per the block cosmos) — javra

Alive in the sense of being a creative process. Where intelligence is natural and artificial.

nteresting: ca — javra

Interesting: can a computer that feeds off itself - reminiscent to me of the Ouroboros symbol's significance - not be conceived of as organic? And, if organic, to what extent can it be conceived of as a computer?

... trying to work through some semantics. — javra

Computer processes things. If the universe is a process then where do its inputs come from. A difference machine which has randomness in it.

Conclusion: The cosmos is not like a machine but like an uncreated being. Of course, this would welcome in concepts of pantheism and panentheism as God. Is the cosmos evil? “In part; in part not,” seems to be the most appropriate answer. — javra

Good, I agree. Leibniz was to the first of think of the entire universe as a computer. Feeding off itself.

What intelligence has a particle? How it creates itself out of the blue, even if eternal? — Hillary

I reject the logic of creation.

And non-intelligent particles — Hillary

Yes, and this I contest.

There might not be a first cause, but there just has to be a reason for life. — Hillary

Why does there have to be a reason?