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?).

[FaerieStories]

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.

But you are trying to tell me that EVERY non-believer got their methodology wrong somewhere. Really? All of them? Not even one of them did the exact same thing a believer did? If someone studies the bible, prays every day, seeks help from all the people you think are best to seek help from and basically does everything you think would lead to faith- and still does not believe, are you seriously telling me that is still his fault?

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.

And I posit that NOTHING can be proven to be true- so as with all things it is useless to even assert that. We can prove things to be true to the best of our ability: that is all. Absolute knowledge is not useful to us in any way.

[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"?

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.

So do you think any religious person has used scientific methods to study and observe their beliefs in God. Of course there are no physical methods but through study, learning and observation they believed in God more strongly.

[FaerieStories]

So do you think any religious person has used scientific methods to study and observe their beliefs in God. Of course there are no physical methods but through study, learning and observation they believed in God more strongly.

If someone out there has found demonstrable proof that god exists through observation, testing, peer-reviewing etc- the scientific method- then yes, I would very much like to learn of this person's findings. And so would, I think, the scientific community. Because I think there would be a nobel prize up for grabs for anyone who has managed to accomplish that.

[kayky]

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

It's called Panentheism. I see that Big Bang thing as God taking on physical form as the universe while at the same time remaining transcendent to the universe.

You see, one thing that doesn't make sense to me is that all the laws of physics as they function today would have had to already been in place at that precise moment of the Big Bang to create a universe capable of giving rise to life. What are the odds that this would have happened by mere chance?

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.

Well, that was the point of posting the article. Why doe every seeker of the divine experience it in the same way? It doesn't prove the cause, but it sure makes you wonder.

[FaerieStories]

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

It's called Panentheism. I see that Big Bang thing as God taking on physical form as the universe while at the same time remaining transcendent to the universe.

You see, one thing that doesn't make sense to me is that all the laws of physics as they function today would have had to already been in place at that precise moment of the Big Bang to create a universe capable of giving rise to life. What are the odds that this would have happened by mere chance?

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

Well, that was the point of posting the article. Why doe every seeker of the divine experience it in the same way?

Like I say, we are all very genetically similar. When you have a headache it will feel very similar to me if I have a headache. If you have a hallucinogenic experience, it may well feel the same to me if I have one.

[Rkrause]

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

It's called Panentheism. I see that Big Bang thing as God taking on physical form as the universe while at the same time remaining transcendent to the universe.

You see, one thing that doesn't make sense to me is that all the laws of physics as they function today would have had to already been in place at that precise moment of the Big Bang to create a universe capable of giving rise to life. What are the odds that this would have happened by mere chance?

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

Well, that was the point of posting the article. Why doe every seeker of the divine experience it in the same way?

Like I say, we are all very genetically similar. When you have a headache it will feel very similar to me if I have a headache. If you have a hallucinogenic experience, it may well feel the same to me if I have one.

That is interesting you seem to believe in the Big Bang because there was plenty of time to create those conditions. Could a god have been created in those same conditions?

[kayky]

But you are trying to tell me that EVERY non-believer got their methodology wrong somewhere. Really? All of them? Not even one of them did the exact same thing a believer did? If someone studies the bible, prays every day, seeks help from all the people you think are best to seek help from and basically does everything you think would lead to faith- and still does not believe, are you seriously telling me that is still his fault?

People believe or disbelieve for a multitude of reasons. I'm talking about the God experience itself. There are effective methods that have been developed over the milennia of human civilization. I don't understand your emphasis on faith as if it is a gift to be given. If you are interested in religious experience, you look to the mystics for instruction. I'm not just talking about emotionalism or the mob hysteria that is sometimes witnessed in certain churches. Not every believer has had or even desires to have the experience I am talking about. They believe for their own reasons.

And I posit that NOTHING can be proven to be true- so as with all things it is useless to even assert that. We can prove things to be true to the best of our ability: that is all. Absolute knowledge is not useful to us in any way.

I think that is what most of us do in forming a worldview. We try to make sense of our observation and experience.

[kayky]

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

The universe did not exist before the Big Bang according to my understanding of the theory. Just a singularity that heated up until it exploded into just the right universe to give rise to life. Sounds fishy to me.

[JohnPaul]

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

The universe did not exist before the Big Bang according to my understanding of the theory. Just a singularity that heated up until it exploded into just the right universe to give rise to life. Sounds fishy to me.

The Big Bank describes only the particular universe we happen to live in, with its dimensions of time and 3-dimensional space, which exploded from a singularity which occurred in a larger multi-dimensional reality. An infinity of slightly different such universes may exist, most of them incompatible with life. We happened to develop in this particular universe only because it happened to contain conditions compatible with our life-form.

Incidentally, our universe is only about 14 billion years old, as we measure time. Time as we know it is simply one of the 4 dimensions of our particular universe, and may be completely different in other universes, with no relation to our time.

[Rkrause]

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

The universe did not exist before the Big Bang according to my understanding of the theory. Just a singularity that heated up until it exploded into just the right universe to give rise to life. Sounds fishy to me.

The Big Bank describes only the particular universe we happen to live in, with its dimensions of time and 3-dimensional space, which exploded from a singularity which occurred in a larger multi-dimensional reality. An infinity of slightly different such universes may exist, most of them incompatible with life. We happened to develop in this particular universe only because it happened to contain conditions compatible with our life-form.

You do realize that many non-believers would counter your whole idea with the very common "Prove it" statement.

Which of course you can't