Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[LiamOS]

Hi AkiThePirate (great name!)

My real name is Liam.

Perhaps you could offer an example?

Naturally, the Cosmological Argument is very strong. I don't believe it's inherently fallacious, but the assumption of causality is as of yet unwarranted.

They do and, again, it depends on how they define their deity… But if they are defining an multi-omni deity who created the entire universe and exists outside of time then their explanation is hardly simple! In any case if we do not know what caused or preceded the big bang how could they possibly say their explanation is simpler or more pausible?

If one was to define a Deity as that which caused/preceded the universe, then that Deity exists depending on the bounds of existence and without the condition that it is not the universe itself.
I don't believe that such a Deity would be at all meaningful, though.

[ChristShepherd]

Jesus said....."for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

If a Christian can put a couple of mountains in Florida, I will believe.

[Argenta]

Hi Zzyzx

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another.

When people, even smart people, are taught from birth and all through childhood (before judgment and discernment have developed) that "god" made them and influences human lives (and "afterlives"), they often (usually?) continue to believe that into adulthood.

I suspect there is another facet to this question of why smart people strongly hold unwarranted beliefs. It’s well-known that there is an inverse relationship between level of education (a surrogate for smartness) and religiosity. So education reduces but does not eliminate unwarranted beliefs. Here is one way in which this could be explained:

1. People believe in deities for emotional and/or cultural reasons.
2. Very smart people have emotional and cultural needs to the same degree as less smart people.
3. Exposure to critical thinking and new ideas can cause cognitive dissonance and lead to changes in world-view.
4. Very smart people are better able to rationalise their beliefs with sophisticated arguments.
5. Therefore, it is possible for smart people with strong emotional or cultural reasons to persist with unwarranted beliefs and to be comfortable doing so.

Just an idea…

Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Let's see if any Theists do so.

I can’t wait!

Argenta

[Argenta]

Hi Liam!

Perhaps you could offer an example?

Naturally, the Cosmological Argument is very strong. I don't believe it's inherently fallacious, but the assumption of causality is as of yet unwarranted.

True, the Kalam cosmological argument is intuitively appealing and the logic is valid but neither premise is warranted so the conclusion cannot be relied upon.

They do and, again, it depends on how they define their deity… But if they are defining an multi-omni deity who created the entire universe and exists outside of time then their explanation is hardly simple! In any case if we do not know what caused or preceded the big bang how could they possibly say their explanation is simpler or more pausible?

If one was to define a Deity as that which caused/preceded the universe, then that Deity exists depending on the bounds of existence and without the condition that it is not the universe itself.
I don't believe that such a Deity would be at all meaningful, though.

My point was to deny the proposition that a deity as complex as the Christian God could be a simple explanation and one cannot argue a deity is a simpler explanation than a natural explanation because we don’t have a natural explanation to compare it with!

If we just say deity = that which caused the big bang then we are admitting we know nothing about the deity. Intelligent? Natural? Supernatural? Quantumly weird? As you say, not at all meaningful.

Argenta

[EduChris]

...If evidence can’t produce belief then something else does...

Partly it depends on how you ask the question. Say you start with the question, "Is there a God?" The way this question is asked, the default position seems to be "Not unless we can find clear and convincing evidence."

On the other hand, suppose you start with the question, "Is the universe its own explanation?" In this case, the default answer seems to be, "No, the universe appears to be contingent--there must be something more to explain it."

In my case, I realized that the universe couldn't be its own explanation. That made me more open to the possibility of God. And when I finally read the Bible for myself, as an adult, it seemed true to me, and so I became a Christian. Since that time I have read and studied various other religions and philosophies, and I haven't ever found anything more true than the Bible.

"True," however, does not automatically entail "literal" truth. Much of the Bible may be literally true, but much more is true in a deeper sense.

...Thanks for this link but to relate it to my question, was Godel's Ontological Theorem the tipping point that convinced you there must be a god (assuming you are a theist)?...

I didn't even know about Godel's Ontological Theorem when I became a Christian. It's just an example of a philosophical argument that I've found helpful in demonstrating a certain core of knowledge that we can have about God. My argument of the theorem actually ended up being a bit different than Godel intended, but I think my approach is not contrary to Godel's but rather implicit in his.

[Argenta]

Hi ChrisShepherd

Jesus said....."for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

If a Christian can put a couple of mountains in Florida, I will believe.

You make a good point, if prayer actually worked we wouldn't need apologists and atheists would be as rare as hen's teeth. Problem is, this mountain-moving experiment is as difficult to replicate as Fleischmann and Pons' cold fusion

Argenta

[Argenta]

... I realized that the universe couldn't be its own explanation.

How do you know that?

Argenta

[Woland]

I have another serious problem with the cosmological argument: what does a "first cause" have to do with any religionist' god?

If you're ready to call any sort of first cause "god", then sure, maybe "god" exists.

This is, however, a terrible argument for the existence of Abrahamic gods. It seems ridiculous to pretend to link these to a "first cause". The Cosmological argument doesn't have the slightest clue what it's arguing for.

All the philosophical arguments for the existence of a personal and loving deity are terminally flawed. If anyone disagrees, let them bring up an argument which they believe isn't fallacious.

-Woland

[Zzyzx]

.

... I realized that the universe couldn't be its own explanation.

How do you know that?

They teach it in bible college.

Apologists frequently resort to "origin of the universe", "origin of life", or "infinity", or "multiple universes" discussions to supposedly support claims of a "creator". Since no one knows such origins or existences, all is speculation. Those who actually study such matters acknowledge that they are speculating or theorizing about such matters. Creationists DENY that they are speculating and claim to KNOW TRUTH (because they have a book written by ancient religious promoters that tells them "truth").

[EduChris]

... I realized that the universe couldn't be its own explanation.

How do you know that?...

Basically, I decided that the sum total of all things contingent would be unlikely to be non-contingent. The word "know" is a misnomer, though, since it was just a gut instinct.