Why do you believe in God?

[McCulloch]

The arguments for believing that there is a God can be categorized as follows:

1. Four Classical Arguments
2. The Argument from First Cause
   1. Everything must have a cause
   2. Causal Chains cannot go on forever
   3. Therefore there must be a first cause, and that is God.
3. The Argument from Design
   1. Something in the universe or the universe itself seems to be designed
   2. Therefore a designer must exist and that is God
4. The Argument from the Anthropic Principle
   1. The universal constants are fine tuned for the existence of humans.
   2. Therefore there must have been a God to fine tune the universe for our existence
5. The Ontological Argument
   1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
   2. Assume that God does not exist.
   3. An existent God is a being greater than a non-existent one
   4. If God did not exist, then we could conceive of a being greater than God -- A God that exists.
   5. This is a contradiction, therefore (2) must be false and God exists
   Courtesy of Saint Anselm.

1. Four Subjective Arguments
2. The Argument from Coincidence
   1. There have been some remarkable coincidences.
   2. There must be a reason for those coincidences.
   3. That reason is God.
3. The Argument from Prophecy
   1. A holy book makes prophesies.
   2. A holy book or the adherents of it report that those prophesies have come true.
   3. Therefore whatever else is in the book, such as the claim that God exists must be true.
4. The Argument from Subjectivity and Faith
   1. People feel sure that God exists.
   2. Therefore God exists.
5. The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such
   1. A miracle occurs, perhaps as a response to prayer.
   2. God exists as evidenced by the divine intervention

1. Four Psycho-Mathematical Arguments
2. The Argument from Redefinition
   1. God is Love or Goodness or some other such thing.
   2. Love, goodness or whatever, clearly exists.
   3. Therefore God exists.
3. The Argument from Cognitive Tendency
   1. Some cognitive tendencies suggest the existence of an all-powerful agent.
   2. God must be that all-powerful agent
4. The Universality Argument and Morality
   1. Across cultures, the similarities in moral values are quite apparent.
   2. They must come from God
5. The Gambling Argument
   1. We can choose to believe or not in God.
   2. If we choose wrongly then negative consequences of choosing to disbelieve are greater than the negative consequences of choosing to believe.
   3. Therefore it is prudent to believe.

The classifications and much of the synopses are from John Allen Paulos, Professor of Mathematics at Temple University, in his book Irreligion, A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up As fallacious as these might seem, these seriously are the arguments put forth by philosophers, theologians, saints, apologists and preachers.

These are the arguments for God. There are numerous subtle variations on them, but essentially, as far as I can tell those who claim that God exists do so based on one or more of these arguments and nothing else.

Why should I believe that there is a God? What are your reasons? Are any of these reasons valid? If your reasons do not fall into any of the above groupings, please let us know why you believe. If you believe for a combination of these reasons, select the strongest one and explain why.

[McCulloch]

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

Or perhaps a combination of Divine Interventions and Prophesy. It depends on how you frame the argument.
If it goes,

1. Jesus rose from the dead.
2. Only God can raise the dead.
3. Therefore God exists

then it is the argument from Divine Interventions.
However, if it goes

1. The Bible prophesied the messiah's resurrection.
2. The Bible writers reported that Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore God must have inspired the Bible and God exists

then it is the argument from Prophesy.

[Goose]

Tell me exactly why contradictory accounts written decades after an alleged supernatural event whose authors had a biased agenda could be considered
evidence that the supernatural event actually occurred? It might be evidence of belief, but I don't see how it can be evidence of it actually occurring.

How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assissinated?

[McCulloch]

But we are easily fooled.

Speak for yourself, please.

I am. I was once a Christian.

There is ample evidence that humans are easily fooled. Ask any anthropologist, historian, salesperson, psychologist, educator, researcher, politician, priest, rabbi or evangelist.

[Goat]

Tell me exactly why contradictory accounts written decades after an alleged supernatural event whose authors had a biased agenda could be considered
evidence that the supernatural event actually occurred? It might be evidence of belief, but I don't see how it can be evidence of it actually occurring.

How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assissinated?

How does that answer the question? That is known as 'diversion'. On the other hand, crossing the Rubicon or being assassinated does not violate natural laws. Being resurrected does. Crossing the Rubicon and being assassinated is not an extraordinary event, coming back from the dead is.

Your logic seems to be trying to imply that 'We can't prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or was assassinated, so Jesus was resurrected is God". Sorry, but that
logic just does not cut it.

Oh, we have an extant letter dated from 43 c.e. that was physically written within 3 months of Caesars assassination from Gaius Asinius Pollio to Cicero. We have the original autograph of that letter, and there are no political or theological agenda's to it.

Your attempt at diversion is noted, and what is also noted is the fact you do not have anything but anonymous writings from at least 35 years later by people who were not even in Judah.

[catholic crusader]

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

Or perhaps a combination of Divine Interventions and Prophesy. It depends on how you frame the argument.
If it goes,

1. Jesus rose from the dead.
2. Only God can raise the dead.
3. Therefore God exists

then it is the argument from Divine Interventions.
However, if it goes

1. The Bible prophesied the messiah's resurrection.
2. The Bible writers reported that Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore God must have inspired the Bible and God exists

then it is the argument from Prophesy.

Only God can raise the dead.

For this you'd have to prove that only god can raise the dead?

IE: other agents may be able to raise the dead.

-correct medical procedure
-advanced scietific techneque
-other supernatural agents other than god
-satan

2 you'd have to prove that god even has the ability to raise people from the dead.

What if he doesn't
What if only satan does that.
Or some other being.
Or none.


If resurection is not understood then how can it be garaunteed to be the result of god.

[catholic crusader]

being assassinated does not violate natural laws. Being resurrected does.

Do you have such a complete understanding of natural laws that you can claim that resurrection violates them?

[Zzyzx]

.

Tell me exactly why contradictory accounts written decades after an alleged supernatural event whose authors had a biased agenda could be considered evidence that the supernatural event actually occurred? It might be evidence of belief, but I don't see how it can be evidence of it actually occurring.

How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assissinated?

Has Caesar become an icon for a new religion? Is there a claim that he died and came back to life -- or that he is "one" with his father in heaven? Is there some great significance attached to his supposed river crossings or assassination?

Instead of discussing Caesar or King Tut (and you seem inclined to do rather than discussing the topic at hand) let's discuss whether a dead body came back to life in reality or whether the tale is fiction or fable.

Some claim that the claimed event actually, literally happened in the real world a couple thousand years ago -- and that the supposed "resurrection" is "proof" that "god" exists. There are many who do not accept that claim -- and ask that it be verified with evidence other than religious dogma and literature.

[catholic crusader]

I thought science was the pursuit of the answers.

But it seems like you already have them.

I guess we'll just fire all the scientists. We don't need them we have the ALMIGHTY "goat".

Knower of everything on hand to answer our questions.

So while science has been hard at work trying figure everything out. You knew all along and you were just holding out on us.

We don't need science any more we have Goat.

[Zzyzx]

.

being assassinated does not violate natural laws. Being resurrected does.

Do you have such a complete understanding of natural laws that you can claim that resurrection violates them?

I thought science was the pursuit of the answers.

But it seems like you already have them.

I guess we'll just fire all the scientists. We don't need them we have the ALMIGHTY "goat".

Knower of everything on hand to answer our questions.

So while science has been hard at work trying figure everything out. You knew all along and you were just holding out on us.

We don't need science any more we have Goat.

I, speaking as one who has studied and taught science, agree with Goat that assassination does not violate what we know of nature but that a dead body coming back to life does violate what we know of nature.

Are you attempting to argue the oppsite -- that the truly dead can or do come back to life?

Attempts at demeaning comments detract from YOUR credibility. Kindly state a position that you feel qualified to defend.

[olavisjo]

Introductory level science introduces vocabulary and some general concepts. Additional study expands upon the general concepts and introduces specialized studies. Advanced study includes research and contribution to understanding of the field (if possible).

Observation is, as I clearly stated, only the first step in understanding events, processes and products of nature. I do not expect those who have not studied science to understand its significance or its methods (even though many think they understand well enough to be critical). I ask again if you have studied science beyond introductory level. Can you answer the question honestly?

I took first year college chemistry and physics.
Can you tell me what in science is not based on observation? Obviously direct observation is impossible with some things like a photon, so they create experiments to observe it indirectly, but they still base their findings on observations.

I am not upon a fence of any kind. As far as I am concerned, there is no decision for me to make because there is no evidence one way or the other. I refuse to make ANY decision on a topic for which there is no evidence.

“Deciding� in the absence of evidence is guessing. I am not interested in guessing – but leave that to others. However, when they declare their guesses to be facts or “universal truth� I challenge their assertions.

There is NO compelling reason for me to decide for or against ANY of the thousands of proposed “gods�. Proponents of various religions attempt to induce others to decide in favor of their favorite “god�; however, their “reasoning� or lack thereof is NOT binding upon anyone other than themselves and those they can convince (without evidence) to worship a favored invisible, undetectable super being.

This must be the place where we insert the Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Krishna...straw men.

Now is the time for religionists to insert Pascal’s Wager – “Worship my favorite god just in case� (ignoring the thousands of other gods who MUST also be worshiped if one really believes the “just in case� scenario).

Don't forget that some of these gods demand exclusivity, if you dare to worship a false god he will smite you just for that alone.

Can you honestly say that you have met people who HAVE given ALL their possessions to the poor? If not, your statement is meaningless and fraudulent if it implies that you know people who DO give all their possessions to the poor.

Yes, I know of such people, my own cousin did not have much wealth, but all that she had went to the Salvation Army just before she became a nun, she has not held any property for over 30 years.

What is your purpose in advertising where you “found bread� if not to influence others or to encourage them to go to where you “found bread�? That IS recruitment whether or not you recognize or acknowledge it as such.

True enough, I am providing a service to those who do not know that they need it yet.

Also...

...an attempt to demonstrate that the claims and statements of theism CANNOT be shown to be true or accurate or applicable to others.

Would be recruitment to a different philosophy as well.

You keep saying that there is NO evidence either way and that is simply not true. There is lots of evidence, it is just not the slam dunk evidence that would settle this debate. But when you take all the evidence and weigh it carefully, the God concept is really not all that far fetched. Remember we are only left with two choices 1 "goddidit" or 2 "somethingelsedidit". Would you be willing to admit that it is possible for a reality to exist that we do not have enough gray matter to even conceive of, or do you think that you are so smart that given enough time you will have all knowledge wrapped up with a bright bow tied around it?