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]

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.

No problem. For the record, I'm a falliblist, so nothing I say should ever be taken as a statement of absolute certainty, including this statement.

TC

[Ayah5768]

With all due respect, once you've accepted an irrational belief, you are no longer in any position to defend it. Only people who strive to be rational can participate in such discussions, since they actually care if they lose.

I realize, of course, that you are making an argument of rationality. As stated, I disagree with your stance on that issue.

I think you've just made my point for me by displaying a harmful consequence of your supposedly harmless irrational belief.

TC

TC, I really wish I had time to respond to all of this, but I really don't. My husband was just offered a new job (yeah!) so I now have to begin packing to move half-way across the country.

I was actually going to respond, but given that I doubt you'll let the last word lie with me, I've decided to give it to you.... this time. I'll be back in a couple of months and I certainly hope that we can have another conversation at that time.

I would like to say, though, that I didn't come here to defend anything. I have been on your side of this conversation so I know that I can't do such a thing with any kind of success. (That doesn't mean what you think it means.) I came into this particular thread because the OP didn't account for my answer.

Also, you didn't show anything at all about my belief. Not because I think I'm special and the rules don't apply to me--just because you aren't talking about me or my mind. You are talking about someone who would allow themselves to go off the handle--as opposed to someone who remains watchful of that very thing in every area of her life.

I came from a group where I was off the handle, at their request. There are a lot of things that I take very seriously and making sure that I am using sound judgment is one of them. I do that in all things everyday. To be rational is to exercise sound judgment and reason. I can do that and come to a different conclusion. I can even do that and come to the wrong conclusion. I cannot do that and go bats*** crazy killing Scotsman.

Anyway, my life will keep me from the rest of this conversation. Because I won't be here to speak for myself, I would appreciate it if no one would speak for me. For example:

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

You know nothing about what I think or how your little tale applies to me. You think you do. Fine. But I'm not going to be here any more to tell you if it is an accurate portrayal of my mind, so your commentary from this point on is unfair.

See you in a few months.

~Ayah

[olavisjo]

Kindly bring forth the "tons" of evidence for the existence of gods.

This is not a one post request, so let's start here.

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

One thing I find interesting in this design is that we have not been able to create a model of this design. We have computers that can recreate the DNA pattern of every living thing that has existed since the world began (this may take days or even weeks for some of our supercomputers to do) but we have as yet to understand DNA enough to create a program to do that, we have not even found a reasonable simulation yet. (or at least I am not aware of such a thing, why do I get the feeling that I am about to be introduced to such a thing?).
I am aware that this argument is an argument from ignorance, therefore it is not strong evidence but I would still classify it as evidence because I feel that with science being in the know about DNA as much as they are, I would expect them to have the answers to this point.
The world is not that complicated, everything is made of three particles, how is it that these three particles are so finely tuned that they can create all the complexity around us and the most brilliant men can't get a grip on the behaviour of these particles as they interact with each other?
So, I am still left with a strong suspicion that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, I am still left with a strong suspicion that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

You promised a "ton" of evidence, but when challenged all you bring forth is a "strong suspicion".

Thank you for demonstrating that you cannot furnish anything that resembles evidence – much less a "ton".

Have you studied biology and DNA beyond introductory level? Does your information on such topics come from theology or theologians or from study of the field?

[olavisjo]

.

So, I am still left with a strong suspicion that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

You promised a "ton" of evidence, but when challenged all you bring forth is a "strong suspicion".

Thank you for demonstrating that you cannot furnish anything that resembles evidence – much less a "ton".

Have you studied biology and DNA beyond introductory level? Does your information on such topics come from theology or theologians or from study of the field?

I did say...

This is not a one post request, so let's start here.

But I can see by your attitude that you are not interested in hearing any evidence, I think that even if someone rose from the dead, you would still not consider that evidence.
If you wish I can keep bringing it up, or not, it is up to you. Just let me tell you that greater minds than yours or mine have seen this evidence and have ruled in favor of a deity, it is not wise to simply discount all evidence just because there is not one definitive piece of evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

But I can see by your attitude that you are not interested in hearing any evidence,

Au contraire, I am quite interested in hearing evidence NOT "strong suspicion". Do you know the difference?

I think that even if someone rose from the dead, you would still not consider that evidence.

Provide the evidence and learn that you are wrong.

If you wish I can keep bringing it up, or not, it is up to you.

You are engaged in public debate. You have claimed there is a "ton of evidence" to support your position. So far you have presented nothing more than suspicion.

Just let me tell you that greater minds than yours or mine have seen this evidence and have ruled in favor of a deity,

Yes, and greater minds than yours and mine have seen the evidence and decided against belief in a deity. Your point?

it is not wise to simply discount all evidence just because there is not one definitive piece of evidence.

To what "all evidence" do you refer? I asked for evidence and you offered suspicion. Is there some reason that you do not present evidence?

[olavisjo]

Au contraire, I am quite interested in hearing evidence NOT "strong suspicion". Do you know the difference?

True enough, one tree does not make a forest, but as I said this is just the beginning. We have to look at the entire collection of circumstantial evidence before we can infer a conclusion. But if every time I point to a tree, you are going to say "that is not a forest" we are never going to make any headway.

I think that even if someone rose from the dead, you would still not consider that evidence.

Provide the evidence and learn that you are wrong.

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

If you wish I can keep bringing it up, or not, it is up to you.

You are engaged in public debate. You have claimed there is a "ton of evidence" to support your position. So far you have presented nothing more than suspicion.

A ton of sand begins with one grain.

Just let me tell you that greater minds than yours or mine have seen this evidence and have ruled in favor of a deity,

Yes, and greater minds than yours and mine have seen the evidence and decided against belief in a deity. Your point?

The point is that it is not wise to make up your mind before you weigh all the evidence.

it is not wise to simply discount all evidence just because there is not one definitive piece of evidence.

To what "all evidence" do you refer? I asked for evidence and you offered suspicion. Is there some reason that you do not present evidence?

I thought that I was doing just that, I gave you a grain of sand you weighed it and said this is not a ton and you threw it out and asked for a grain of sand that weighs a ton. We are only on page one of a very long book, if you wish to continue I am willing to go on, if not, that is fine as well.

[Beto]

I thought that I was doing just that, I gave you a grain of sand you weighed it and said this is not a ton and you threw it out and asked for a grain of sand that weighs a ton. We are only on page one of a very long book, if you wish to continue I am willing to go on, if not, that is fine as well.

Certainly you don't presume your grain of sand is the only one ever offered by theists in the forum. Perhaps a ton has already been gathered and rejected. Why don't you elaborate a list of the grains of sand that you feel are more relevant and ask if any of those arguments is new and unrebutted? Do you doubt each will be carefully considered on its merits?

[Zzyzx]

.

You are engaged in public debate. You have claimed there is a "ton of evidence" to support your position. So far you have presented nothing more than suspicion.

A ton of sand begins with one grain.

You claim a "ton of evidence" and deliver a "grain of sand" saying more will follow -- providing that I do not comment unfavorably about your meager offering. The grain you deliver appears to be "suspicion" rather than evidence or proof.

Is there some reason that you hesitate to deliver your "evidence" and merely make excuses instead?

I suspect that you have no evidence that is any more convincing than the "suspicion" already offered (the "grain of sand"). I also suspect that readers are interested in evaluating the merits of your "evidence" and are not likely to buy a flurry of excuses in lieu of the promised "ton of evidence".

[McCulloch]

I gave you a grain of sand you weighed it and said this is not a ton and you threw it out and asked for a grain of sand that weighs a ton. We are only on page one of a very long book, if you wish to continue I am willing to go on, if not, that is fine as well.

Let's accept the claim that there are many reasons to believe in God; that there are many facts which are legitimately evidence that God exists. One would then believe that some of the reasons and some of the evidence is better in some way than other evidence. For example, the argument from first cause is a somewhat better more convincing argument than Pascal's wager. Not all of the evidence should be grains of sand, there should be small rocks, and perhaps a few boulders. Why not start with those?