Back to basics: Give me an argument as to why a god exists

[FaerieStories]

Hi, I'm new here and I see a lot of active topics on specific concepts where users are already heavily engaged in debate, making it a little hard for me to join in. So to test the waters a little (and to help me decide whether or not to stick around here), let's go back to basics and have a debate about the most fundamental question at hand here: does a god exist?

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god. So, if a Theist would like to get the ball rolling by giving me a reason why god exists, that would be great.

(PS: unrelated question: what is the general breakdown of belief/non-belief on these forums? Is it an even mix of believers and non-believers, or is there- as tends to happen on the internet- a larger proportion of atheists to Theists?).

[Rkrause]

Yet even science requires faith. No scientific theory can be proven. They are accepted by faith to be the best explanation we have at the moment. Our faith in a theory grows stronger if over time the theory forms the basis for even more plausable theories.

When Darwin first published Origin of Species, he really had very little evidence to go on except his faith that natural selection was the best explanation for what he observed in nature. Since then the theory of evolution has proved to be the very foundation of modern biology. And so it is a theory in which we place a great deal of faith.

No, no, no. 'Faith' as in: 'the belief in something without reason' does not come into science at all. Darwin did not have 'faith' in his theory. He went out and did his research and formulated it based on evidence. He sailed to the various corners of the world to observe fauna and flora. He did not sit at home with his eyes shut having 'faith' that he was right. Science has nothing to do with faith. Faith is the exact antithesis of everything science stands for- science is about finding things out through observation and experimentation, not through blind wishing.

Personal question. Do you believe religious people are "blind wishing"?

[FaerieStories]

No. You don't understand what I'm saying. If a part of who God is includes coming into form as the universe, you desire to find "traces" of God in the universe makes no sense.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. God created the universe but is also part of it? How does that work?

And so it becomes a matter of interpretation.

Exactly. And so the person who has the religious experience is not going to be able to justify it as a religious experience to anyone but himself.

[dianaiad]

Yet even science requires faith. No scientific theory can be proven. They are accepted by faith to be the best explanation we have at the moment. Our faith in a theory grows stronger if over time the theory forms the basis for even more plausable theories.

When Darwin first published Origin of Species, he really had very little evidence to go on except his faith that natural selection was the best explanation for what he observed in nature. Since then the theory of evolution has proved to be the very foundation of modern biology. And so it is a theory in which we place a great deal of faith.

No, no, no. 'Faith' as in: 'the belief in something without reason' does not come into science at all. Darwin did not have 'faith' in his theory. He went out and did his research and formulated it based on evidence. He sailed to the various corners of the world to observe fauna and flora. He did not sit at home with his eyes shut having 'faith' that he was right. Science has nothing to do with faith. Faith is the exact antithesis of everything science stands for- science is about finding things out through observation and experimentation, not through blind wishing.

Your characterization of the evidence theists put their trust (FAITH) into does not mean that they don't put their faith in evidence. It just means that you have contempt for the validity of the evidence they trust.

But scientists have had a very long history of putting faith in things that turned out to be untrue. I wrote in another thread about Semmelweiss, who told his fellow physicians that if they would only wash their hands between procedures, that far fewer patients would die of infections. He was laughed at, mocked...indeed, he spent his last years in an insane asylum, and his ideas were not widely accepted until considerably after his death. Those scientists who disagreed with him put a considerable amount of faith..er, trust...in what they knew of science.

Does this mean that those scientists only had faith, not 'trust' as you so cavalierly dismiss it?

What of plate tectonics? For nearly a century a few mavericks told their fellow scientists that there was continental drift, and that this was the result of gigantic plates that floated on the sea of molten rock...the mantle. Which group had 'trust,' then, and which only 'faith' (in your definition of belief without reason)? Was it the group that struggled for decades under the disapprobation of their fellow geologists, who sacrificed jobs, careers and reputations because they, by golly, had faith in the evidence in front of them?

Or was it the far greater number of geologists who had faith in what they had always been taught, that the earth was static?

Now me, I'm old. My father first majored in geology when he got home from WWII, and I still have his books. Not ONE of them mentioned plate tectonics.

Well, that's not quite true. One does...as a crackpot theory to be dismissed as a throwaway idea.

When I took geology, the idea of plate tectonics was just then gaining acceptance; still a little controversial, but not by much. There were still a few hide bound people out there who didn't like it.

Now, of course, it would truly be a crackpot who did not accept plate tectonics as a scientific truth.

Now ALL of these scientists trusted in the evidence that they relied on to inform their world view. All of them put faith in that evidence...and a bunch of 'em were flat out wrong. Looking back at the evidence they relied on, it's difficult to imagine how they could possibly have put any reliance in that evidence, so obvious is the evidence for plate tectonics, but they did.

So.

Is the difference between 'faith' and 'trust' REALLY that you personally dismiss and deride the evidence in which it is placed?

That's a bit simplistic, I do think.

[FaerieStories]

Yet even science requires faith. No scientific theory can be proven. They are accepted by faith to be the best explanation we have at the moment. Our faith in a theory grows stronger if over time the theory forms the basis for even more plausable theories.

When Darwin first published Origin of Species, he really had very little evidence to go on except his faith that natural selection was the best explanation for what he observed in nature. Since then the theory of evolution has proved to be the very foundation of modern biology. And so it is a theory in which we place a great deal of faith.

No, no, no. 'Faith' as in: 'the belief in something without reason' does not come into science at all. Darwin did not have 'faith' in his theory. He went out and did his research and formulated it based on evidence. He sailed to the various corners of the world to observe fauna and flora. He did not sit at home with his eyes shut having 'faith' that he was right. Science has nothing to do with faith. Faith is the exact antithesis of everything science stands for- science is about finding things out through observation and experimentation, not through blind wishing.

Personal question. Do you believe religious people are "blind wishing"?

I can't possibly give a blanket statement for all religious people. If they believe in god without any good reason to purely because they feel they should for whatever reason, then yes.

[dianaiad]

Yet even science requires faith. No scientific theory can be proven. They are accepted by faith to be the best explanation we have at the moment. Our faith in a theory grows stronger if over time the theory forms the basis for even more plausable theories.

When Darwin first published Origin of Species, he really had very little evidence to go on except his faith that natural selection was the best explanation for what he observed in nature. Since then the theory of evolution has proved to be the very foundation of modern biology. And so it is a theory in which we place a great deal of faith.

No, no, no. 'Faith' as in: 'the belief in something without reason' does not come into science at all. Darwin did not have 'faith' in his theory. He went out and did his research and formulated it based on evidence. He sailed to the various corners of the world to observe fauna and flora. He did not sit at home with his eyes shut having 'faith' that he was right. Science has nothing to do with faith. Faith is the exact antithesis of everything science stands for- science is about finding things out through observation and experimentation, not through blind wishing.

Personal question. Do you believe religious people are "blind wishing"?

I can't possibly give a blanket statement for all religious people. If they believe in god without any good reason to purely because they feel they should for whatever reason, then yes.

But...you don't seem to believe that any religious person could have any other reason for believing.

Circular, a bit, there?

[Rkrause]

No. You don't understand what I'm saying. If a part of who God is includes coming into form as the universe, you desire to find "traces" of God in the universe makes no sense.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. God created the universe but is also part of it? How does that work?

And so it becomes a matter of interpretation.

Exactly. And so the person who has the religious experience is not going to be able to justify it as a religious experience to anyone but himself.

God explains WHY the universe was created.
Science trys to explain HOW God created the universe.

Understanding both (why and how) gives the believer a larger understanding of the universe and our roll in it.

[kayky]

No. I am not assuming that YOUR GOD is like this. I AM assuming that my hypothetical god is like this. Whether my hypothetical god is anything like your god is up to you to decide.

I have found that, when it comes to God, it's best not to make too many assumptions. You end up on a debate thread where you criticize God for not meeting your expectations.

Uh no, I never said you actually said that. I said that is what I predict you might say- based on people I have talked with in the past who hold a similar position as yours. And the only reason I mentioned it was because it's such a stupid argument that I thought I better get it out the way in case you actually did decide to use it.

So you were simply trying to spare me the humiliation. Thank you.

...wow. Despite accusing me of 'putting words in your mouth', turns out my guess was spot on. You just said exactly what I predicted you would say. You said that people are 'doing it wrong' or 'not trying hard enough'.

You can try as hard as you like; but if your methodology is ineffective, it won't matter. This is true in every pursuit you undertake. Why would you think spirituality would be any different? It's the reason I abandoned fundamentalism and sought a better methodology.

This is your standard for belief. It is founded on your belief that you understand the nature of reality. Shaky ground.

Cop-out. You could end any argument about anything by saying what you have just said. We are trying to understand the nature of reality here to the best of our ability. I am not claiming absolute knowledge.

Not only is it not a cop-out, it is one the foundational tenets of my argument. You start out with the assumption that reality includes only that which can be observed scientifically. Not only do I question that assumption, I posit that it cannot be proven to be true.

[FaerieStories]

Your characterization of the evidence theists put their trust (FAITH) into does not mean that they don't put their faith in evidence. It just means that you have contempt for the validity of the evidence they trust.

Most Theists I have heard allude to both 'evidence' and faith. They say- for example- they have the evidence of the bible, but the faith that the bible is the word of god.

But scientists have had a very long history of putting faith in things that turned out to be untrue. I wrote in another thread about Semmelweiss, who told his fellow physicians that if they would only wash their hands between procedures, that far fewer patients would die of infections. He was laughed at, mocked...indeed, he spent his last years in an insane asylum, and his ideas were not widely accepted until considerably after his death. Those scientists who disagreed with him put a considerable amount of faith..er, trust...in what they knew of science.

Does this mean that those scientists only had faith, not 'trust' as you so cavalierly dismiss it?

Nope. They were just wrong. And even if you are correct and they did have 'faith', that would not have anything to do with science, because science and the scientific method is designed to be completely opposite to the principles of 'faith'.

What of plate tectonics? For nearly a century a few mavericks told their fellow scientists that there was continental drift, and that this was the result of gigantic plates that floated on the sea of molten rock...the mantle. Which group had 'trust,' then, and which only 'faith' (in your definition of belief without reason)? Was it the group that struggled for decades under the disapprobation of their fellow geologists, who sacrificed jobs, careers and reputations because they, by golly, had faith in the evidence in front of them?

Or was it the far greater number of geologists who had faith in what they had always been taught, that the earth was static?

Now me, I'm old. My father first majored in geology when he got home from WWII, and I still have his books. Not ONE of them mentioned plate tectonics.

Well, that's not quite true. One does...as a crackpot theory to be dismissed as a throwaway idea.

When I took geology, the idea of plate tectonics was just then gaining acceptance; still a little controversial, but not by much. There were still a few hide bound people out there who didn't like it.

Now, of course, it would truly be a crackpot who did not accept plate tectonics as a scientific truth.

Now ALL of these scientists trusted in the evidence that they relied on to inform their world view. All of them put faith in that evidence...and a bunch of 'em were flat out wrong. Looking back at the evidence they relied on, it's difficult to imagine how they could possibly have put any reliance in that evidence, so obvious is the evidence for plate tectonics, but they did.

They believed something and were wrong. So? If they arrived at their initial conclusion through using the scientific method, it would have been ascertained through observation and experimentation. NOT through 'faith'. And if they DID have 'faith' then as I say- this is not science we are talking about.

Is the difference between 'faith' and 'trust' REALLY that you personally dismiss and deride the evidence in which it is placed?

That's a bit simplistic, I do think.

No. Trust is based on evidence. Faith is inserted instead of evidence.

[FaerieStories]

No. You don't understand what I'm saying. If a part of who God is includes coming into form as the universe, you desire to find "traces" of God in the universe makes no sense.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. God created the universe but is also part of it? How does that work?

And so it becomes a matter of interpretation.

Exactly. And so the person who has the religious experience is not going to be able to justify it as a religious experience to anyone but himself.

God explains WHY the universe was created.
Science trys to explain HOW God created the universe.

Understanding both (why and how) gives the believer a larger understanding of the universe and our roll in it.

'God' as a hypothesis explains nothing until you can explain god, or prove he is even present.

But...you don't seem to believe that any religious person could have any other reason for believing.

Circular, a bit, there?

Uh, I'm not sure I follow.

[kayky]

No, no, no. 'Faith' as in: 'the belief in something without reason' does not come into science at all. Darwin did not have 'faith' in his theory. He went out and did his research and formulated it based on evidence. He sailed to the various corners of the world to observe fauna and flora. He did not sit at home with his eyes shut having 'faith' that he was right. Science has nothing to do with faith. Faith is the exact antithesis of everything science stands for- science is about finding things out through observation and experimentation, not through blind wishing.

Your narrow definition of faith may apply to some religious people (the dim-witted or the indifferent), but it doesn't apply to me and a lot of other believers posting here.

I too have done the research, experimented and observed the results.