Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 257 by Jashwell]

I think there is less evidence of aliens than of God.

The only other way I can show you God does exist is with the Bible. But since you accept nothing from the Bible, no point in trying.

And pointless because the Bible is pure hearsay, at best.

The only other thing i can say is science and Bible do agree about at leasts 3 very important things scientist haven't know for a very long time.

There is wisdom and history in the Bible. Do those 3 things belong in one of those categories, or are they something else. It might help to identify them.

Pre-historic creatures before pre-historic humans:
Genesis 6:4 There were 'giants in the earth in those days'; 'and also after that', when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, 'the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown'.

The dividing of what was then one massive continent:
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was 'the earth divided'; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The retracting of the universe to what it originally was, as believed by some scientists:
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 230 by instantc]

It is more appropriate to say that the Universe always (for all time) existed, always will exist, and never (for no time) didn't exist. That there isn't a prior "state" of nothing, that the word is simply a negation indicating that there isn't a 'before'.

Always existed, always will exist, and never didn't exist. << This is exactly what Christians say about that supreme source they call God.

On your statement, no scientist or other has never proved, let alone made this statement in the past, they cannot now, and never will. Scientist have been asked where what went Bang came from. Their reply, 'We don't know yet." If and when they do say from what, it will likely be quite similar to your reply of hydrogen and helium clouds.

From what did the hydrogen and helium come from?

If and when they can answer this they will still be left with the same question: From what did that come from?

Eventually they will have to give the same reply Christians and other say about God: 'It always was'

The Bible does at least say where how and what we know as the universe and all in it came from. Since I will be ask for documentation.. here it is.

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

In other words.. God said for it to be and Bang.. there it was. Genesis 1 gives a more detailed explanation. By the way: Genesis 1 and evolutionists are in perfect agreement with the order of life beginning on this planet.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 177 by Bust Nak]

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "the coin is neither heads nor tails until it lands"?

I would say the latter, but the latter doesn't convay the idea that the neither side of the coin faces upwards during the flip.

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "at no point during the flip, did either heads or tails faced upwards until it lands"?

We only consider the result after the flip is finished, while it is in the air, whether heads or tails points up for a split second is irrelevant. Therefore, it isn't "both" or "neither", but "who cares?"

Those that thought quite reasonably, that tracking how the coin spin in the air, is the key in predicting how it would land, would care. As it turns out, they can't, and that's entirely counter-intuitive. Which goes back to my original point, all those pages ago. Logic is nothing without premises to work from, what we think is logical necessity, may turn out to a valid but false conclusion from a false premise.

[mwtech]

Always existed, always will exist, and never didn't exist. << This is exactly what Christians say about that supreme source they call God.

On your statement, no scientist or other has never proved, let alone made this statement in the past, they cannot now, and never will. Scientist have been asked where what went Bang came from. Their reply, 'We don't know yet." If and when they do say from what, it will likely be quite similar to your reply of hydrogen and helium clouds.

From what did the hydrogen and helium come from?

If and when they can answer this they will still be left with the same question: From what did that come from?

Eventually they will have to give the same reply Christians and other say about God: 'It always is.

All this is is a god of the gaps fallacy. Because scientists don't know what started it all, it must have been God. Anywhere the answer is I don't know, Theists insert God. The truth is, we actually don't know, and God is no more likely an answer than any other theory we have. It is okay to say you don't know. We don't need to know the answer to everything.

But you can look through history and see the problems with the God of the Gaps. Where God used to be inserted, we now know the real cause. The planet didn't fall out of space? God must be holding is up. But then we figured out how gravity worked and God was no longer needed in the equation. I think the trend will continue this way. You say scientists will soon prove that God caused the universe. I say that we will figure that out eventually like we have all the other questions and God will no longer be needed in the equation.

[jcb]

Always existed, always will exist, and never didn't exist. << This is exactly what Christians say about that supreme source they call God.

On your statement, no scientist or other has never proved, let alone made this statement in the past, they cannot now, and never will. Scientist have been asked where what went Bang came from. Their reply, 'We don't know yet." If and when they do say from what, it will likely be quite similar to your reply of hydrogen and helium clouds.

From what did the hydrogen and helium come from?

If and when they can answer this they will still be left with the same question: From what did that come from?

Eventually they will have to give the same reply Christians and other say about God: 'It always is.

All this is is a god of the gaps fallacy. Because scientists don't know what started it all, it must have been God. Anywhere the answer is I don't know, Theists insert God. The truth is, we actually don't know, and God is no more likely an answer than any other theory we have. It is okay to say you don't know. We don't need to know the answer to everything.

But you can look through history and see the problems with the God of the Gaps. Where God used to be inserted, we now know the real cause. The planet didn't fall out of space? God must be holding is up. But then we figured out how gravity worked and God was no longer needed in the equation. I think the trend will continue this way. You say scientists will soon prove that God caused the universe. I say that we will figure that out eventually like we have all the other questions and God will no longer be needed in the equation.

You are exactly right. Even after a little fine tuning The God of Christianity and other religions will not be part of the equation. Will not because their God Almighty is not a being, human or other, on a throne in some distant place called heaven.

I try to get people to first find WHAT, not who, the God Almighty of the Bible really is. To do this a person has to look in the Bible because it is the only documentation available. It is very clear of WHAT God Almighty is.

I am not a member of any religious organization, and I don't like being referred to as Christian, because to me Christian has become a dirty word.

[mwtech]

You are exactly right. Even after a little fine tuning The God of Christianity and other religions will not be part of the equation. Will not because their God Almighty is not a being, human or other, on a throne in some distant place called heaven.

I try to get people to first find WHAT, not who, the God Almighty of the Bible really is. To do this a person has to look in the Bible because it is the only documentation available. It is very clear of WHAT God Almighty is.

I am not a member of any religious organization, and I don't like being referred to as Christian, because to me Christian has become a dirty word.

It doesn't matter what God you believe in or what you think it is. I think assuming that because we don't know what caused something a God (of whatever holy text you choose) did it is wrong. If we don't know the answer, that means we don't know the answer. It doesn't mean a god is the answer.

And it has been made clear that atheists here think the bible is mythical. Saying that the bible contains accurate description of cosmological history is like saying a tarot card accurately predicted your future. It is written so vaguely that you can wring almost any meaning out of it if you are clever enough to pick the right verses and hide the rest of the book. My pastor did a sermon once on how you can make the bible say the moon is made out of cheese if you use the right passages. I have missionaries of different denominations knocking on my door all the time and each one will tell me it means something different. What makes you think you are more right than they are in your interpretation?

[jcb]

[Replying to post 265 by mwtech]

What makes you think you are more right than they are in your interpretation?

Because I don't use interpretations make assumptions or unfounded conclusions, nor do I believe anything someone may say about God or the Bible just because they say this or that is what it means.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 266 by jcb]

Because I don't use interpretations make assumptions or unfounded conclusions, nor do I believe anything someone may say about God or the Bible just because they say this or that is what it means.

except you have made assumptions already in this thread

1. that the supernatural exists
2. there is a creator
3.that creator is specifically the Abrahamic god.

You have also used interpretations of scripture in an attempt to mesh with science.

Hebrews 1:10, Heb 1:11,Heb 1:12,2Peter 3:10 = Big crunch

This is a dramatic interpretation of the scripture which takes a generalized statement to mean something much more specific.

Lastly is this theory that the verses you spelled out an original creation from your interpretation of scripture? A quick google search will reveal that this is not an original thought and has been around for a while so.... while you claim you

do not

interpret scripture
make assumptions
or believe what others have to say about god

they remain just claims because they are clearly false.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 266 by jcb]

Because I don't use interpretations make assumptions or unfounded conclusions, nor do I believe anything someone may say about God or the Bible just because they say this or that is what it means.

except you have made assumptions already in this thread

1. that the supernatural exists
2. there is a creator
3.that creator is specifically the Abrahamic god.

You have also used interpretations of scripture in an attempt to mesh with science.

Hebrews 1:10, Heb 1:11,Heb 1:12,2Peter 3:10 = Big crunch

This is a dramatic interpretation of the scripture which takes a generalized statement to mean something much more specific.

Lastly is this theory that the verses you spelled out an original creation from your interpretation of scripture? A quick google search will reveal that this is not an original thought and has been around for a while so.... while you claim you

do not

interpret scripture
make assumptions
or believe what others have to say about god

they remain just claims because they are clearly false.

Yellow >> True
Blue >> Totally false

I said only that Hebrews and 2 Peter agrees with what some scientist believe. There is no interpretation anywhere, nor a conclusion or assumption that is not in perfect agreement with the words written.

And I never said the creator is the 'Abrahamic god'. God as you have heard does not exist.

As for the Red.. I never claimed the associate the verses as as original. Your Google search only shows that there are others that have recognized the same thing.

Now.. the scientists who believe in the universe will eventually retract do not believe as the Bible states. Their belief is based on this.

That forces of gravity inside the universe will stop the expansion and eventually retract all into a black hole never to expand again, or perhaps to expand again. Other scientists disagree. Either way it is not something that can be proved true or false. It is something that remains to be seen or not. Time will tell.

Your continuous misquoting of my posts tells me one thing. Regardless of what I post you will disagree, simply because it is not what you believe. Christian do the exact same thing.

Bye Bye... Why waste my time here. You can lead a horse to the water but you sure can't make it drink......

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 268 by jcb]

JCB it is hard to make sure to quote one accurately when your position is relatively ambiguous. It would help if your responses had a more coherent and direct message.
If you feel like I keep missing the mark on what your position is perhaps you have not clearly defined it.