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.

[olavisjo]

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?

You are missing my point, I am saying that there is a lot of evidence, none of which is conclusive, when all considered together forms a case.
Again, if I keep pointing to trees and you keep saying, "that is just a tree, it is not a forest" are we ever going to see the forest?

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?

One man's grain is another man's boulder, and vica versa.

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

I do apologize for my slow and steady approach, but that is simply the speed at which I work. But as Beto said...

Perhaps a ton has already been gathered and rejected.

So I am asking you to look at all this evidence again as a whole and not just piece by piece.
For example, when a lawyer refutes the irreducible complexity of a mouse trap by removing the mechanism that holds the bait and allows the trap to spring and uses it as a tie clip, he may be reducing the value of the argument, but he does not render it to zero. After all we do know that mouse traps did not come from tie clips.

[Thought Criminal]

You are missing my point, I am saying that there is a lot of evidence, none of which is conclusive, when all considered together forms a case.
Again, if I keep pointing to trees and you keep saying, "that is just a tree, it is not a forest" are we ever going to see the forest?

No, it's more like "stop showing me bushes and pretending a forest is on the way". If you add up a million zeros, you still get zero.

TC

[Zzyzx]

.

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

I do apologize for my slow and steady approach, but that is simply the speed at which I work.

You won't live long enough to present a "ton" of "evidence". In two days you have managed to present ONE suspicion (not evidence at all) and called that a "grain of sand" – promising more to make up the ton.

If a grain of sand weighs 1/10 of an ounce X 16 ounces per pound X 2000 pounds per short ton = 3 Million grains. If you somehow manage one "grain" per day the ton would take 8,700 years.

But as Beto said...

Perhaps a ton has already been gathered and rejected.

So I am asking you to look at all this evidence again as a whole and not just piece by piece.

Okay, present the "evidence as a whole" for examination.

As Beto said, perhaps the ton has already been gathered and REJECTED. If it was rejected previously, do you expect it to be accepted if you can present it again?

Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over expecting different results".

For example, when a lawyer refutes the irreducible complexity of a mouse trap by removing the mechanism that holds the bait and allows the trap to spring and uses it as a tie clip, he may be reducing the value of the argument, but he does not render it to zero. After all we do know that mouse traps did not come from tie clips.

Kindly don't bother trying to explain this. Concentrate on supplying EVIDENCE by the ton. So far you have demonstrated total inability and evasiveness. Are you aware that readers are likely to be intelligent enough to recognize stall tactics?

I am accustomed to debating Christians (particularly fundamentalist / literalist varieties) whose primary tactics are ducking questions, using evasive maneuvers, making excuses for absence of evidence. My approach is to ask questions that they cannot answer honestly and openly without admitting that their god theories are based upon opinion, conjecture, fables and ancient storytellers' yarns rather than evidence. I trust readers to evaluate the merits of what is said and to reach conclusions based upon those evaluations.

Are you attempting to make religion look foolish?

[McCulloch]

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?

One man's grain is another man's boulder, and vica versa.

Understood. Start with what you consider the boulders.

[olavisjo]

You won't live long enough to present a "ton" of "evidence". In two days you have managed to present ONE suspicion (not evidence at all) and called that a "grain of sand" – promising more to make up the ton.

If a grain of sand weighs 1/10 of an ounce X 16 ounces per pound X 2000 pounds per short ton = 3 Million grains. If you somehow manage one "grain" per day the ton would take 8,700 years.

Not a problem for me, I am going to live forever, my hope is that you will still be rebutting me 8,700 years from now.

Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over expecting different results".

I have never said that I am not insane, in fact when my computer stops working, I just keep restarting it, over and over until it does.

Kindly don't bother trying to explain this. Concentrate on supplying EVIDENCE by the ton.

If I don't explain to you what I am doing, how will you ever know where I am going?
Man is very good a cracking codes, we cracked Germany's Enigma code and many others which were deliberately hidden, so how is it that we are yet unable to crack the DNA code which is not hidden? This is evidence, I ask you how much does it weigh?
Moving on we get to carbon, which all life is based on. Carbon exists soft as soot or hard as diamond, but is also useful to encode huge amounts of information in long chains of DNA. If the properties of carbon were even slightly different than they are we would not be having this conversation, debate or argument. So is this fact doe to a very happy coincidence or was it made to be so? This is evidence, I ask you how much does it weigh?
In fact if we look at any of the physical constant, if any of them were different by even the slightest amounts, life would not be possible. So again, is this just another happy coincidence or was the universe made for us? This is evidence, I ask you how much does it weigh?

Understood. Start with what you consider the boulders.

To me the greatest evidence for God is the Bible, but it is going to take some effort on my part to make it palatable to Zzyzx.

[Zzyzx]

.

You won't live long enough to present a "ton" of "evidence". In two days you have managed to present ONE suspicion (not evidence at all) and called that a "grain of sand" – promising more to make up the ton.

If a grain of sand weighs 1/10 of an ounce X 16 ounces per pound X 2000 pounds per short ton = 3 Million grains. If you somehow manage one "grain" per day the ton would take 8,700 years.

Not a problem for me, I am going to live forever,

Thank you for the demonstration.

my hope is that you will still be rebutting me 8,700 years from now.

I am more realistic than to expect to "live forever".

Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over expecting different results".

I have never said that I am not insane, in fact when my computer stops working, I just keep restarting it, over and over until it does.

I do not argue this point.

Kindly don't bother trying to explain this. Concentrate on supplying EVIDENCE by the ton.

If I don't explain to you what I am doing, how will you ever know where I am going?

Man is very good a cracking codes, we cracked Germany's Enigma code and many others which were deliberately hidden,

Are you aware that the US and Allies did NOT "crack" the enigma code, but salvaged an enigma code machine from a German warship and learned how Germans were using the machine?

so how is it that we are yet unable to crack the DNA code which is not hidden?

Do you follow closely the study of DNA? Are you aware of accomplishments during the past decade or two? Can you cite studies that demonstrate current levels of knowledge concerning DNA?

Have you studied biology and genetics beyond introductory level?

This is evidence,

What is evidence of what? Is you misunderstanding of "code cracking" and DNA studies evidence of the presence of invisible, undetectable super beings? No it is not.

I ask you how much does it weigh?

Your opinions and conjectures weigh nothing at all. Your assumptions and mistakes discredit what you say.

Moving on we get to carbon, which all life is based on.

Have you studied biology and chemistry thoroughly enough to lecture others on the importance or significance of carbon?

Carbon exists soft as soot or hard as diamond, but is also useful to encode huge amounts of information in long chains of DNA. If the properties of carbon were even slightly different than they are we would not be having this conversation, debate or argument. So is this fact doe to a very happy coincidence or was it made to be so? This is evidence, I ask you how much does it weigh?

Carbon is significant to life as we know it presently. Carbon is also an element that is very common in the Earth's lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere.

How do you claim that as evidence of anything? Does it "prove" your favorite "god"? Even it a "god" was involved, how would anyone know which one – by reading a book – which book – why?

Because you favor one particular storybook and one propose "god" among thousands available is no indication that either are valid. Because a book claims that it is true and its "gods" are real is no indication of truth.

In fact if we look at any of the physical constant, if any of them were different by even the slightest amounts, life would not be possible. So again, is this just another happy coincidence or was the universe made for us? This is evidence, I ask you how much does it weigh?

Life is in harmony with its environment. How surprising. Leprechauns may have caused things to work out that way, or Zeus, or Vishnu. If you intend to claim the fit as evidence for the existence of your favorite "god" compelling evidence will be required to convince people who are not gullible.

Understood. Start with what you consider the boulders.

To me the greatest evidence for God is the Bible, but it is going to take some effort on my part to make it palatable to Zzyzx.

No amount of effort will convince Zzyzx that the bible is true based upon the bible saying it is true. There is no other evidence – only conjecture such as you supplied above – claims that nature somehow "proves" divinity.

That may be convincing in bible class but it is NOT at all convincing in the real world. Thousands of people read these threads and evaluate what is said. I am confident that most are capable of understanding that what you have said above in no way provides evidence of "gods". Perhaps you can think of something to show them that your statements have merit (in something other than your opinion).


It might be illuminating to read discussions in the "Christians out-numbered or out-debated" thread with particular attention to what Otseng says. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8

[olavisjo]

Are you aware that the US and Allies did NOT "crack" the enigma code, but salvaged an enigma code machine from a German warship and learned how Germans were using the machine?

Alan Turing may disagree with you, but nonetheless by cleverness and valor we did crack it. So why would human DNA be so difficult to crack?
I will say this that someday we my understand that code, we will have the knowledge to create plants and animals tailor made to fit our needs, even our own bodies will be made better. In that day we shall be like gods.

Life is in harmony with its environment. How surprising.

Not harmony, fine tuned. If the nuclear force were even slightly stronger or weaker the universe would only contain hydrogen or black holes. Same with the gravitational constant if it were stronger or weaker by the slightest amount stars would not have formed. This universe is not too hot or too cold, but just right.
Granted if it were not so we would not be here to talk about it, but did it just happen like that by chance, I don't think so. I am grateful to God for giving me a place to exist.

No amount of effort will convince Zzyzx that the bible is true...

I am not saying the Bible is true, I am saying that it is inspired by God.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are you aware that the US and Allies did NOT "crack" the enigma code, but salvaged an enigma code machine from a German warship and learned how Germans were using the machine?

Alan Turing may disagree with you, but nonetheless by cleverness and valor we did crack it. So why would human DNA be so difficult to crack?

Are you familiar with DNA research during the past decade or two?

Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was a 13-year project coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. During the early years of the HGP, the Wellcome Trust (U.K.) became a major partner; additional contributions came from Japan, France, Germany, China, and others. See our history page for more information.

Project goals were to

identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
store this information in databases,
improve tools for data analysis,
transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.

Though the HGP is finished, analyses of the data will continue for many years. Follow this ongoing research on our Milestones page. An important feature of the HGP project was the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector. By licensing technologies to private companies and awarding grants for innovative research, the project catalyzed the multibillion-dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostered the development of new medical applications.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/H ... home.shtml

Do you deny that the above described research has been conducted successfully?

I will say this that someday we my understand that code, we will have the knowledge to create plants and animals tailor made to fit our needs, even our own bodies will be made better. In that day we shall be like gods.

Are you not familiar with genetically modified crops, selective breeding of livestock, and cloning of animals?

Life is in harmony with its environment. How surprising.

Not harmony, fine tuned. If the nuclear force were even slightly stronger or weaker the universe would only contain hydrogen or black holes. Same with the gravitational constant if it were stronger or weaker by the slightest amount stars would not have formed. This universe is not too hot or too cold, but just right.

Granted if it were not so we would not be here to talk about it, but did it just happen like that by chance, I don't think so. I am grateful to God for giving me a place to exist.

You are welcome to believe that your favorite "god" provided you a place to exist. However, when you make public claim in a debate forum you are expected to substantiate what you say.

Perhaps you realize that not everyone agrees with you. In church discussions or when preaching to the choir such opinions may be readily accepted. In debate with Non-Theists such statements are not accepted as being true.

No amount of effort will convince Zzyzx that the bible is true...

I am not saying the Bible is true,

IS the bible true? Are biblical statements truthful accounts of characters and events?

Is the bible NOT true or not true in parts?

I am saying that it is inspired by God.

Kindly cite evidence to verify that the bible is "inspired by god". That is a claim that requires substantiation as per forum rule #5.

[olavisjo]

Do you deny that the above described research has been conducted successfully?

Very successful.

Are you not familiar with genetically modified crops, selective breeding of livestock, and cloning of animals?

I have heard of that, but what I had in mind was building living things from scratch.

Life is in harmony with its environment. How surprising.

Not harmony, fine tuned. If the nuclear force were even slightly stronger or weaker the universe would only contain hydrogen or black holes. Same with the gravitational constant if it were stronger or weaker by the slightest amount stars would not have formed. This universe is not too hot or too cold, but just right.

Granted if it were not so we would not be here to talk about it, but did it just happen like that by chance, I don't think so. I am grateful to God for giving me a place to exist.

You are welcome to believe that your favorite "god" provided you a place to exist. However, when you make public claim in a debate forum you are expected to substantiate what you say.

Perhaps you realize that not everyone agrees with you. In church discussions or when preaching to the choir such opinions may be readily accepted. In debate with Non-Theists such statements are not accepted as being true.

Do you deny my claim that the universe is fine tuned or my claim that I am grateful or both?

Kindly cite evidence to verify that the bible is "inspired by god". That is a claim that requires substantiation as per forum rule #5.

I have read the Bible and concluded that the Bible is inspired by God, I have met a lot of people who have also read the Bible and concluded that it is inspired by God.
If you wish we could post the question on the forum to see if we can get any members to come forward who have also tested the Bible and concluded that it is inspired by God. How many witnesses would we need before we can call it evidence?

[daedalus 2.0]

Do you deny that the above described research has been conducted successfully?

Very successful.

Are you not familiar with genetically modified crops, selective breeding of livestock, and cloning of animals?

I have heard of that, but what I had in mind was building living things from scratch.

Life is in harmony with its environment. How surprising.

Not harmony, fine tuned. If the nuclear force were even slightly stronger or weaker the universe would only contain hydrogen or black holes. Same with the gravitational constant if it were stronger or weaker by the slightest amount stars would not have formed. This universe is not too hot or too cold, but just right.

Granted if it were not so we would not be here to talk about it, but did it just happen like that by chance, I don't think so. I am grateful to God for giving me a place to exist.

You are welcome to believe that your favorite "god" provided you a place to exist. However, when you make public claim in a debate forum you are expected to substantiate what you say.

Perhaps you realize that not everyone agrees with you. In church discussions or when preaching to the choir such opinions may be readily accepted. In debate with Non-Theists such statements are not accepted as being true.

Do you deny my claim that the universe is fine tuned or my claim that I am grateful or both?

Kindly cite evidence to verify that the bible is "inspired by god". That is a claim that requires substantiation as per forum rule #5.

I have read the Bible and concluded that the Bible is inspired by God, I have met a lot of people who have also read the Bible and concluded that it is inspired by God.
If you wish we could post the question on the forum to see if we can get any members to come forward who have also tested the Bible and concluded that it is inspired by God. How many witnesses would we need before we can call it evidence?

1. The Universe is not tuned. it is. You are presupposing it is tuned. The question is "what evidence is there that there is a God" you say "U is tuned - requires a Tuner". Not true in the sense that the Tuner needs to be a conscious being. You have to demonstrate the U was deliberately tuned. You can't. This Argument from Fine-Tunedness fails in many ways.

Please read up on it - it is embarrassing for me to see other Xians use this argument and then claim they have Faith.

Do you have Faith like a child or Evidence? YOu are claiming evidence, but your evidence is a fallacy. Can't you just believe in God through Faith?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... .html#fine
Please read!

2. If you move to Saudi Arabia, no doubt you will turn Muslim since most people will attest to the divinity of the Koran.

Again, you are offering a sophmoric fallacy. Argument ad Populum.

Look it up. Please educate your self on your reasons for believing in God. On one hand you simply decalre you will believe in Jesus no matter what and now you are arguing you have a reason. Which is it?

God is watching: tell the truth.

Please read up on your "reasons" for Faith.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ments.html