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]

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?).

My question is, what evidence would you accept besides scientific?

[FaerieStories]

Atheists almost always look for evidence from science. The problem is the tools of science are too primative to prove or disprove God nor is there any scientific field researching God.

So the "proof" that believers have is never accepted and always rejected. Atheists will never find "proof" of God using their own accepted evidence.

The tools of science are absolutely perfect and demonstrably reliable for discovering anything that exists. But it can only work on evidence. And if there is no evidence, there is no reason to assume it exists in the first place. It may be true that science can never discover a god. But this is not a reason to assume that a god automatically exists because of this.

He's always up front about it, he doesn't dance around the issue, he tells us what this evidence is, and I contend we're a bit proud to just dismiss it out of hand. .

His 'evidence' was that this character- Poseidon- was described by Homer to be the god of the sea. And the sea exists. Therefore: Poseidon exists. I hope I don't have to explain to you how faulty that logic is.

As I read the OP it seems to imply that there's no evidence for gods. While I agree with such an assessment, I also think it's a bit off to imply theists have come by their beliefs simply 'cause they're some kinda dolt.

I am not trying to 'imply' anything. I have been incredibly forthright. I have not seen any good reason to believe in a god. I am asking someone to state one. Simple as that.

[FaerieStories]

My question is, what evidence would you accept besides scientific?

Such as? Hearsay? No, hearsay is not strong enough evidence for something that breaks the laws of the known universe- we know how unreliable human testimony can be.

[theopoesis]

Hi, I'm new here

Welcome to the board! I hope you enjoy it here.

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...

I took a bit of liberty with your request to go "back to basics." I've been around a little while, off and on. This is a brief summary of my arguments over the past year or two. It's the basics of why I believe, even if it isn't an "argument for the existence of God" so to speak.

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god.

You'll have to find your own reason for your own God (or lack thereof) in my view. But I'll share my story since not too many people have answered seriously as a theist on behalf of theists yet.

I believe in a Trinitarian God. One being eternally subsisting in three Persons.

The language there is quite precise: God is one being, one thing, one entity. But every entity, every being, every thing (everything even) subsists/exists in a specific determinate form. It exists in a specific fashion, in a specific way, etc. One way of existing is to exist as a Person. For a human being, this would mean that our ontology (human nature, DNA/cells, whatever way you want to look at it) exists in a specific way we would call "personal." To be a person, we might suggest several attributes are required: (1) consciousness; (2) volition; (3) agency; (4) self-awareness; (5) relationality. God, I am saying, is a single being that exists simultaneously as three persons, much like a triplicated version of the way that a single human being exists as a single person.

Having said this, we must ask our methodology for "proving", so to speak, that such a God might exist. There are two common routes, of which I would be the latter. The evidentialist would suggest that we would need to compile specific arguments to establish the existence of such a being. So we might offer the cosmological argument: everything needs a cause, the world is a thing, the world needs a cause, therefore God (Cosmological Cause). Now, there are several problems with this. The first is that, philsophically speaking, most of the evidentialist arguments don't seem to survive critical analysis. The second problem is that the God demonstrated by the evidentialist arguments is indeterminate. Some being "God" must exist, but the form in which that God exists, i.e. Who that God is, is never established. Therefore, even successful evidentialist arguments do not get me to my definition of God: the Trinity. The third problem is that the evidentialist perspective seems to grant the validity of an epistemology of neutrality. That is to say, this perspective seems to suggest that there is a neutral ground from which two individuals with different beliefs and ideas can analyze the same data completely objectively and reach the same conclusions about the existence of God. A simple survey of history should be enough to suggest that this has not happened. We cannot say that those who believe (or those who do not believe) are simply too stupid to grasp the ideas correctly. There are simply too many brilliant people on both sides to really accept that possiblity. There are too many brilliant people even here on this forum to accept that possibility.

So we reach the second school: the presuppositionalists. (Of course, this is very simplified and we could create a much more complex schema if we so desired). The presuppositionalist suggests that there is no archimedian point (Herman Dooyeweerd). This goes back to the famous story of Archimedes, a geometrician, who said of a lever, "Give me a place to stand on, and I shall move the earth." Of course, there is nowhere to stand, and therefore no way to use a lever to move the earth. Similarly, if we are to seek a way to change our worldview, we must find a place of sufficient leverage outside of our worldview. The problem is that any thinking we do already occurs within our worldview, and is already skewed by it. Therefore, our presuppositions, our accepted worldview, shapes any conclusions that we may reach, thereby undermining the true neutrality of our analysis. How do we discern the truth, then? For smaller questions (what is 2+2) there is very little that any worldview can do to skew our answers. For larger questions (when is it acceptable to kill someone, or is it) we begin to see a larger divergence of answers partly as a result of the divergence of worldviews. But when we reach meta-theoretical questions (is there a God? What is the meaning of life? What is my fundamental identity and purpose? Why do I suffer?), worldview means everything. What this means is that certain brute experiences, certain philosophical commitments, certain psychological dispositions, inevitably lead to certain conclusions, or at least to certain possible conclusions. As I see it, there are only two ways to really shift a worldview: (1) to have dramatic new experiences or psychological dispositions; (2) to reach a point of crisis where current philosophical commitments can no longer adequately explain reality and where new commitments must therefore be adopted. Therefore, the presuppositionalist is always focused on two related questions: (1) does my worldview correspond to my experiences and psychological existence? (2) does my worldview offer adequate coherence and sufficiently explain the world around me, or am I at a point of crisis?

I believe as a result of my answers to these two questions. Certain experiences are fundamental to my identity, mental health, personal growth, happiness, and interpersonal success. Call these experiences my conversion. I believe in God because I encounter God in everything around me. Furthermore, certain philosophical views seem to answer fundamental questions better than the alternatives. To quote C.S. Lewis, "I believe in God like I believe in the sun. Not because I see the sun, but because by the sun I see everything else."

So let's unpack this a little with reference to a Trinitarian God. First, we will consider the question of experience and religious psychology. Not that experiences alone can do a single thing to prove the existence of God. However, if my religious experience is dissonant with there being a Trinitarian God, it is reason for me to change my worldview. My fundamental understanding of religious phenomenology is Trinitarian. I experience myself as sinner, and therefore God as against me in the Person of the Father (prior to faith). But I also experience myself as made in the image of God, and therefore God as for me in the Person of the Son, who is the great high priest who advocates for me in heaven. I experience God as absent, distant, incomprehensible. And therefore, there is the Person of the Father, transcendent and ineffable. But I also experience God as with me daily, and therefore there is the Person of the Spirit, at work within me. I believe the actions of Jesus Christ are demonstrative of his divinity, and therefore there is the divine Person of the Son. But I see that the Son praises his Father as God, and therefore I adopt the spirituality of the divine Jesus and have faith in the Person of the Father. But I also recognize that something had to be at work within me to recognize the Son as divine, though he was in the form of a human, and therefore there is the Person of the Spirit by whom I am able to believe. And so forth and so on. I know this is not helpful really, but if you ask for a reason why I believe, the first and most simple answer must be that I just do. I believe, and my belief in a Trinitarian God functions as the heuristic for my life's experiences, especially the religious aspects.

Next, we must assess the matter of philosophical coherence and explanative scope. If I want to be a Christian and interpret my experiences in a Trinitarian fashion, must I first abandon my mind? No! On the contrary, I have found the Christian worldview, and especially the doctrine of the Trinity, to be indispensable in my attempt to understand the world and everything in it. I'll merely list a few examples. The Trinity allows for the possibility of communication against the challenges of postmodern criticism. The postmodern argument can be ridiculously simplified as saying that there is no real connection between the reader, the text, and the author, and so ultimately "meaning" is just a projection of the reader's beliefs, always open to new meanings and forms of play. The Christian response (again quite simplified) suggests that in Christ, the Word and definitive communication by the Father (the author), there is ontological unity with the Author and with those who receive the word by the power of the Spirit. In other words, the same ontological vacuum that leads to postmodern criticism is compelling argument for the necessity of an ontological unity-in-diversity such as the Trinity. This is the basis for the connection between author, text, reader, and therefore the basis of true communication. Here's another example: Trinitarian thought allows for the possibility of love as an eternal principle. Sociologists suggest that at least three agents must be involved in any action in order to really be able to interpret whether that action is good. We must not only evaluate the intention of the actor, and the consequences for the one acted upon, but also whether the action, even if undertaken with good intent and consequences towards the action's recipient, might actually harm a neutral third party. In other words, if love is to be an eternal principle, then the eternal God must subsist in at least three Persons. These are but two examples of many that I have encountered in my studies that cause me to believe that faith in a Trinitarian God is sufficiently philosophically defensible to warrant it as a worldview.

Where does that leave us? I certainly don't expect you to convert based on what I've said. I do hope it gives you a little perspective into the ideas of one theist here. But perhaps most importantly, I'd suggest to you a slight change in approach, a change which, to be honest, I'd love to see from pretty much everyone here. Instead of focusing on the question of "does God exist", why don't we focus on questions like, "how can a system of morality exist?", "how does communication work?", "what is the human being?", "how should society function?", "how do we know what we know?", "what is the best kind of historiography?", "what role do beliefs play in politics or economics?", and so forth. If my claims are correct, most people won't convert or de-convert as a result of a philosophical argument for the existence of a God. But if we see how our respective world views are able to answer these sorts of questions, we'll both learn more about how to apply our world views, and about their weaknesses. And perhaps, we'll find what we believe is inadequate as a worldview. Then, the obligatory debates about whether Jesus existed, whether Nicea was a Constantinian conspiracy, and so forth can be a sideshow instead of the main course around here.

meh, just wishful thinking.

[Rkrause]

My question is, what evidence would you accept besides scientific?

Such as? Hearsay? No, hearsay is not strong enough evidence for something that breaks the laws of the known universe- we know how unreliable human testimony can be.

So in reality you won't accept any proof and the OP is meaningless since science isn't trying to find or prove God?

Why did you bring up this issue than?

[FaerieStories]

You'll have to find your own reason for your own God (or lack thereof) in my view. But I'll share my story since not too many people have answered seriously as a theist on behalf of theists yet.

I believe in a Trinitarian God. One being eternally subsisting in three Persons.

The language there is quite precise: God is one being, one thing, one entity. But every entity, every being, every thing (everything even) subsists/exists in a specific determinate form. It exists in a specific fashion, in a specific way, etc. One way of existing is to exist as a Person. For a human being, this would mean that our ontology (human nature, DNA/cells, whatever way you want to look at it) exists in a specific way we would call "personal." To be a person, we might suggest several attributes are required: (1) consciousness; (2) volition; (3) agency; (4) self-awareness; (5) relationality. God, I am saying, is a single being that exists simultaneously as three persons, much like a triplicated version of the way that a single human being exists as a single person.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

Having said this, we must ask our methodology for "proving", so to speak, that such a God might exist. There are two common routes, of which I would be the latter. The evidentialist would suggest that we would need to compile specific arguments to establish the existence of such a being. So we might offer the cosmological argument: everything needs a cause, the world is a thing, the world needs a cause, therefore God (Cosmological Cause). Now, there are several problems with this. The first is that, philsophically speaking, most of the evidentialist arguments don't seem to survive critical analysis. The second problem is that the God demonstrated by the evidentialist arguments is indeterminate. Some being "God" must exist, but the form in which that God exists, i.e. Who that God is, is never established. Therefore, even successful evidentialist arguments do not get me to my definition of God: the Trinity. The third problem is that the evidentialist perspective seems to grant the validity of an epistemology of neutrality. That is to say, this perspective seems to suggest that there is a neutral ground from which two individuals with different beliefs and ideas can analyze the same data completely objectively and reach the same conclusions about the existence of God. A simple survey of history should be enough to suggest that this has not happened. We cannot say that those who believe (or those who do not believe) are simply too stupid to grasp the ideas correctly. There are simply too many brilliant people on both sides to really accept that possiblity. There are too many brilliant people even here on this forum to accept that possibility.

There are more problems with that cosmological argument than those you have just listed. Firstly: that everything must have a cause is an assumption and not an inherently undeniable truth. Secondly: who says this cause need be a god? Thirdly: why does this god not need a cause? And if you're willing to say this go can be causeless, why not adhere to Occam's razor and remove a step from the equation and say that the universe is causeless?

I'm aware you don't subscribe to that argument but I thought I'd throw those out there anyway.

So we reach the second school: the presuppositionalists. (Of course, this is very simplified and we could create a much more complex schema if we so desired). The presuppositionalist suggests that there is no archimedian point (Herman Dooyeweerd). This goes back to the famous story of Archimedes, a geometrician, who said of a lever, "Give me a place to stand on, and I shall move the earth." Of course, there is nowhere to stand, and therefore no way to use a lever to move the earth. Similarly, if we are to seek a way to change our worldview, we must find a place of sufficient leverage outside of our worldview. The problem is that any thinking we do already occurs within our worldview, and is already skewed by it. Therefore, our presuppositions, our accepted worldview, shapes any conclusions that we may reach, thereby undermining the true neutrality of our analysis. How do we discern the truth, then? For smaller questions (what is 2+2) there is very little that any worldview can do to skew our answers. For larger questions (when is it acceptable to kill someone, or is it) we begin to see a larger divergence of answers partly as a result of the divergence of worldviews. But when we reach meta-theoretical questions (is there a God? What is the meaning of life? What is my fundamental identity and purpose? Why do I suffer?), worldview means everything. What this means is that certain brute experiences, certain philosophical commitments, certain psychological dispositions, inevitably lead to certain conclusions, or at least to certain possible conclusions. As I see it, there are only two ways to really shift a worldview: (1) to have dramatic new experiences or psychological dispositions; (2) to reach a point of crisis where current philosophical commitments can no longer adequately explain reality and where new commitments must therefore be adopted. Therefore, the presuppositionalist is always focused on two related questions: (1) does my worldview correspond to my experiences and psychological existence? (2) does my worldview offer adequate coherence and sufficiently explain the world around me, or am I at a point of crisis?

I would agree with you if we were talking about something subjective, like morality. But for anything objective- like the existence of something- there is a right and a wrong answer and therefore your 'worldview' is irrelevent as to whether something is right or wrong. All that matters is evidence.

I believe in God because I encounter God in everything around me.

What do you mean by this exactly?

Furthermore, certain philosophical views seem to answer fundamental questions better than the alternatives.

It's a fallacy to assume that because one school of thought can't find something out, another must automatically be correct.

but if you ask for a reason why I believe, the first and most simple answer must be that I just do.

Well yes, I had a feeling it might come down to that. From a debating standpoint that's a dead-end. There's nothing I can say to refute that and simultaneously, that is no reason for you to be able to prove or validate your beliefs to anyone else (though I think you are aware of that).

I'd suggest to you a slight change in approach, a change which, to be honest, I'd love to see from pretty much everyone here. Instead of focusing on the question of "does God exist", why don't we focus on questions like, "how can a system of morality exist?", "how does communication work?", "what is the human being?", "how should society function?", "how do we know what we know?", "what is the best kind of historiography?", "what role do beliefs play in politics or economics?", and so forth. If my claims are correct, most people won't convert or de-convert as a result of a philosophical argument for the existence of a God. But if we see how our respective world views are able to answer these sorts of questions, we'll both learn more about how to apply our world views, and about their weaknesses. And perhaps, we'll find what we believe is inadequate as a worldview. Then, the obligatory debates about whether Jesus existed, whether Nicea was a Constantinian conspiracy, and so forth can be a sideshow instead of the main course around here.

meh, just wishful thinking.

I shall respectfully disagree on that one. Your other questions are all perfectly good debating points, but I see nothing wrong with getting to the heart of the matter. In my mind, regardless of how this belief has come about- it all comes down to the very simple case that some people believe something exists which others do not. And so the question of whether or not this claim is true is highly relevant.

[FaerieStories]

My question is, what evidence would you accept besides scientific?

Such as? Hearsay? No, hearsay is not strong enough evidence for something that breaks the laws of the known universe- we know how unreliable human testimony can be.

So in reality you won't accept any proof and the OP is meaningless since science isn't trying to find or prove God?

Why did you bring up this issue than?

How exactly can science 'look for god' if there is literally nothing to work with? Science is not a magic computer that throws up answers. Science can only work with evidence or anything purported to be evidence. Science DOES investigate the existence of a god wherever it can- wherever it is presented with something thought to be evidence for it.

What- specifically- are you wanting science to do exactly?

[Rkrause]

My question is, what evidence would you accept besides scientific?

Such as? Hearsay? No, hearsay is not strong enough evidence for something that breaks the laws of the known universe- we know how unreliable human testimony can be.

So in reality you won't accept any proof and the OP is meaningless since science isn't trying to find or prove God?

Why did you bring up this issue than?

How exactly can science 'look for god' if there is literally nothing to work with? Science is not a magic computer that throws up answers. Science can only work with evidence or anything purported to be evidence. Science DOES investigate the existence of a god wherever it can- wherever it is presented with something thought to be evidence for it.

What- specifically- are you wanting science to do exactly?

I think I misunderstood. Are you looking only for scientific evidence of God or other methods of proof viable as well?

Hearsy is out so what other proof are you willing to accept?

[FaerieStories]

My question is, what evidence would you accept besides scientific?

Such as? Hearsay? No, hearsay is not strong enough evidence for something that breaks the laws of the known universe- we know how unreliable human testimony can be.

So in reality you won't accept any proof and the OP is meaningless since science isn't trying to find or prove God?

Why did you bring up this issue than?

How exactly can science 'look for god' if there is literally nothing to work with? Science is not a magic computer that throws up answers. Science can only work with evidence or anything purported to be evidence. Science DOES investigate the existence of a god wherever it can- wherever it is presented with something thought to be evidence for it.

What- specifically- are you wanting science to do exactly?

I think I misunderstood. Are you looking only for scientific evidence of God or other methods of proof viable as well?

Hearsy is out so what other proof are you willing to accept?

I was the one who asked you what other methods you are referring to. If it's a method that demonstrably and reliably produces accurate results, then by all means it will be as good as any other method. But currently science is the best method we have about finding out anything about our universe, so I am unsure not only as to what method you have in mind, but also as to why we can't use science. If it exists, science has the potential to find it.

[kayky]

Welcome, Faeriestories

There is such a thing as religious experience (woo woo, scourge). If you have one, you then have to decide what to do with it. Is this something generated only by the human brain, or have I actually encountered something larger than myself?

If you believe that the scientific method is the only way to obtain knowledge, you will probably insist that it is the former. But I see this as a biased reductionism. Human intuition should not be dismissed so lightly.

Is God the right word to describe what has been encountered? Maybe not. But it takes a long time to type "ground of all being" with your thumbs.