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.

[Thought Criminal]

Beautifully constructed and compelling argument. Thank you.

And yet she thinks she's special so it doesn't apply to her. Makes me want to quaff some fine Irish ale!

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

TC, you are excellent at "turning a phrase". I've tried endlessly to show Theists, in simple language, that a single adoption of ONE irrational belief is, well, irrational.

So far they have all asked for Special Pleading for their unique beliefs.

[Thought Criminal]

TC, you are excellent at "turning a phrase". I've tried endlessly to show Theists, in simple language, that a single adoption of ONE irrational belief is, well, irrational.

So far they have all asked for Special Pleading for their unique beliefs.

Sure, because everyone trusts themselves to do the right thing; laws are for other people. Of course, it turns out that not all of us can be trusted, even though we trust ourselves, so we agree to be bound by the same laws that we bind others to, each of us convinced that we'll never be on the receiving end. In this way, society is formed by mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. This is the basic of ethical normativity.

The situation is much the same for rationality, which is intellectual normativity. We all trust ourselves to properly interpret our subjective, personal experiences, but we don't generally trust others. Rationality forces us to accept the same critical standard that we apply to the rest of the world.

As for my ability to turn a phrase, I don't think it'll matter here. Pardon me while I hop in my car and drive as fast as I can to the other end of the rainbow. Yeah, I've been drinking, but so what? Fine Irish ale doesn't count!

TC

[olavisjo]

TC, you are excellent at "turning a phrase". I've tried endlessly to show Theists, in simple language, that a single adoption of ONE irrational belief is, well, irrational.

So far they have all asked for Special Pleading for their unique beliefs.

It is far more rational to accept the infallibility of ones own mind than to trust in a God who just might not be there.
As for me, I have to say that my mind is too arrogant to trust.

[Thought Criminal]

TC, you are excellent at "turning a phrase". I've tried endlessly to show Theists, in simple language, that a single adoption of ONE irrational belief is, well, irrational.

So far they have all asked for Special Pleading for their unique beliefs.

It is far more rational to accept the infallibility of ones own mind than to trust in a God who just might not be there.
As for me, I have to say that my mind is too arrogant to trust.

My mind is far from infallible. I am quite capable of error. As for God, there is no such thing, so there's nothing to trust.

TC

[olavisjo]

My mind is far from infallible. I am quite capable of error. As for God, there is no such thing, so there's nothing to trust.

TC

Are you infallible enough to say there is no God? Is there no detail you may have overlooked?

[Thought Criminal]

My mind is far from infallible. I am quite capable of error. As for God, there is no such thing, so there's nothing to trust.

TC

Are you infallible enough to say there is no God? Is there no detail you may have overlooked?

I believe I just pointed out that I'm not infallible. Then again, neither is anyone else, so what's your point?

TC

[olavisjo]

I believe I just pointed out that I'm not infallible. Then again, neither is anyone else, so what's your point?

TC

It is not rational to say there is no God unless one is infallible. So it is possible that you may have a few irrational thoughts as well as that fine Irish ale.

[Thought Criminal]

I believe I just pointed out that I'm not infallible. Then again, neither is anyone else, so what's your point?

TC

It is not rational to say there is no God unless one is infallible. So it is possible that you may have a few irrational thoughts as well as that fine Irish ale.

Please back that claim up. Specifically, why should infallibility be required to make any statement other than "I am absolutely certain that..."

TC

[olavisjo]

Please back that claim up. Specifically, why should infallibility be required to make any statement other than "I am absolutely certain that..."

TC

My apologies, when you said...

As for God, there is no such thing, so there's nothing to trust.

I miss read 'absolutely' in there somewhere.