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.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't know about more people, but there are a very small number of people who will stand up for Christ, and they will be persecuted.

Kindly give modern examples from your nation of residence that shows that people who "stand up for Christ" ARE persecuted (avoiding isolate examples and historical reference because you claimed that the "will be persecuted".

I seriously doubt that you can justify saying that those who "stand up for Christ WILL be persecuted". If you cannot, and if you are honorable, you will withdraw the statement and apologize to forum members for misleading them by claiming something that cannot be shown to be true.

Read the comments in this video from youtube. It is not unusual, I can get you as many clips like that as you would want.

I do not consider testimonials from YouTube to be verification of anything. Do you?

If YouTube testimonials or videos promote Satanism or Islam do you accept them as being true, accurate and convincing?

I prefer to gather information from more authoritative sources.

I am not saying that the persecution comes from all members of society, but Satan has control over enough people to do his bidding and he hates Christians the most, Christians are lightning rods to his efforts.

I personally regard "Satan" as imaginary. Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

Where have you learned about "Satan"?

The vast number of Christians are so in name only, and are accepted by society.

What, besides your personal opinion and conjecture, indicates that "the vast number of Christians are so in name only"? Has the matter been investigated / studied to determine the pervasiveness of "Christian in name only"?

What, exactly identifies those who are "Christians in name only"?

Who decides which people are "in name only" and which are "Real Christians" – and what criteria are used to make the determination?

Kindly substantiate your claim or acknowledge that you cannot and withdraw it.

I am surprised that you would question this claim.

When you recover from your surprise, kindly substantiate your claim with evidence – and answer a couple simple questions.

1. What, besides your personal opinion and conjecture, indicates that "the vast number of Christians are so in name only"? Has the matter been investigated / studied to determine the pervasiveness of "Christian in name only"?

2. What, exactly identifies those who are "Christians in name only"?

3. Who decides which people are "in name only" and which are "Real Christians" – and what criteria are used to make the determination?

Will you accept my claim that about 90% of Americans self identify as Christian,

I do NOT accept the figure of 90% (recalling a figure eleven percent lower). Can you cite statistics to substantiate your claim of ninety percent rather than the more generally accepted eighty percent?

and if that is the case why do we see so little Christian virtue in the USA,

What, EXACTLY, is "Christian virtue"?

Who exhibits such "virtue"?

How does one measure "Christian virtue" – by what criteria – by whom?

in fact it is one of the most immoral societies on the planet.

This is a grandiose statement. Can you provide evident that it is correct?

By what universal standard of morality is the US judged immoral? Is there reasoning involved or is the supposed "morality" just a religious construct?

What ethical or moral values are superior – and WHY?

If you don't already know that most Christians are pathetic, you may want to read some stuff like this.

I do not take any position regarding whether Christians are pathetic or not. I have no information on which to base such a conclusion.

Can you supply such information (in a form other than personal opinion, conjecture and testimonials)?


So far you have presented nothing more than personal opinions, conjectures and platitudes. In debate personal opinions that are not verified by credible sources carry no weight; conjectures are unwelcome in serious debate and platitudes are unconvincing. I appreciate responses that demonstrate the emptiness of religious "argument".

[olavisjo]

Read the comments in this video from youtube. It is not unusual, I can get you as many clips like that as you would want.

I do not consider testimonials from YouTube to be verification of anything. Do you?

If YouTube testimonials or videos promote Satanism or Islam do you accept them as being true, accurate and convincing?

I prefer to gather information from more authoritative sources.

I was not pointing to testimonials, it was in the comments section where the said persecution exists. Let me give you some examples.
Keshimi wrote: Hey, EAT MY xxxx. GOD IS A xxxxING FAKE. xxxx THE POLICE.
unclejimbo827 wrote: haha, what a bunch of horsexxxx
mizzomuffin wrote: sum ol' bullxxxx! get of the crystal meth
tamemeifyoucan wrote: y dont u just shut up nobody here is interested!
txroyscock wrote: why dont people do a bit of reasearch before they believe in 2000 year old methods of understanding things. xxxx religious people xxxx

So, is this not an example of persecution?

I am not saying that the persecution comes from all members of society, but Satan has control over enough people to do his bidding and he hates Christians the most, Christians are lightning rods to his efforts.

I personally regard "Satan" as imaginary. Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

I will withdraw Satan as I do find little evidence outside the Bible and my personal experience for his existence.

The vast number of Christians are so in name only, and are accepted by society.

What, besides your personal opinion and conjecture, indicates that "the vast number of Christians are so in name only"? Has the matter been investigated / studied to determine the pervasiveness of "Christian in name only"?

What, exactly identifies those who are "Christians in name only"?

Who decides which people are "in name only" and which are "Real Christians" – and what criteria are used to make the determination?

Kindly substantiate your claim or acknowledge that you cannot and withdraw it

Will you accept my claim that about 90% of Americans self identify as Christian,

I do NOT accept the figure of 90% (recalling a figure eleven percent lower). Can you cite statistics to substantiate your claim of ninety percent rather than the more generally accepted eighty percent?

I could cite such statistics, but they would be about 20 years out of date, your recollection is closer than mine. But, even if 80% of the population call themselves Christian and any significant amount of those would act the way they are commanded by the Bible our society would be considerably different than it is today.

and if that is the case why do we see so little Christian virtue in the USA,

What, EXACTLY, is "Christian virtue"?

Who exhibits such "virtue"?

The Bible gives a list of virtues that Christians are supposed to posses, I ask you if you would doubt that there is very little evidence that any Christians display such traits.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

So, by simple inference if almost 80% of the population calls themselves Christian and there is almost no evidence that they behave as a Christian we would have to conclude that they are Christians in name only, not in deeds.

in fact it is one of the most immoral societies on the planet.

This is a grandiose statement. Can you provide evident that it is correct?

It is based on the hatred of the US, overseas, and my agreeing with foreigners that they have valid reasons to hate America.

By what universal standard of morality is the US judged immoral? Is there reasoning involved or is the supposed "morality" just a religious construct?

Since all morality is merely personal opinion, there is no point comparing nations based on such standards. So, I will withdraw my grandiose statement that the US is the most immoral societies on the planet

So far you have presented nothing more than personal opinions, conjectures and platitudes. In debate personal opinions that are not verified by credible sources carry no weight; conjectures are unwelcome in serious debate and platitudes are unconvincing. I appreciate responses that demonstrate the emptiness of religious "argument".

Let the reader decide.

[JoeyKnothead]

As examples of 'Persecution of Christians'

I was not pointing to testimonials, it was in the comments section where the said persecution exists. Let me give you some examples.
Keshimi wrote: Hey, EAT MY xxxx. GOD IS A xxxxING FAKE. xxxx THE POLICE.
unclejimbo827 wrote: haha, what a bunch of horsexxxx
mizzomuffin wrote: sum ol' bullxxxx! get of the crystal meth
tamemeifyoucan wrote: y dont u just shut up nobody here is interested!
txroyscock wrote: why dont people do a bit of reasearch before they believe in 2000 year old methods of understanding things. xxxx religious people xxxx

So, is this not an example of persecution?

Please do tell me how this is any different than theists claiming atheists are 'possessed by Satan', 'under Satan's influence', 'dead in sin', 'blinded by Satan'.

Need I remind you it has been determined that theists are allowed to declare atheists fools in these forums?

[Zzyzx]

.

So, is this not an example of persecution?

Do unfavorable comments constitute PERSECUTION?

Do you feel PERSECUTED when people on YouTube say not nice things about you or your beliefs?

Are your convictions so weak that they are threatened by ignorant people making unfavorable of denigrating comments – to the extent that you feel PERSECUTED?

What term would you use if there was actual persecution (action) based upon your beliefs?

I do NOT accept the figure of 90% (recalling a figure eleven percent lower). Can you cite statistics to substantiate your claim of ninety percent rather than the more generally accepted eighty percent?

I could cite such statistics, but they would be about 20 years out of date, your recollection is closer than mine. But, even if 80% of the population call themselves Christian and any significant amount of those would act the way they are commanded by the Bible our society would be considerably different than it is today.

Okay, eighty percent of US citizens polled self-identify as Christian.

The bible contains many instructions regarding killing of "enemies of god" (including reference to killing spouse, friends, family for suggesting worship of competing gods – and including instructions for killing of infants).

Our society would be very different if the bible was followed.

If you are attempting to suggest that the "good" parts of the bible are not followed, perhaps you would be kind enough to identify the "good" parts and provide criteria by which they can be recognized by everyone.

What, EXACTLY, is "Christian virtue"?

Who exhibits such "virtue"?

The Bible gives a list of virtues that Christians are supposed to posses, I ask you if you would doubt that there is very little evidence that any Christians display such traits.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

So, by simple inference if almost 80% of the population calls themselves Christian and there is almost no evidence that they behave as a Christian we would have to conclude that they are Christians in name only, not in deeds.

Okay, you have convinced me. Many of those who call themselves Christians do not demonstrate love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith meekness, and temperance.

MUST a person do all of those things in order to be a "Christian" in more than "name only"?

Are you saying that there are no "real" Christians? Or, can you point to people who demonstrate ALL of the above qualities all of their life?

Can you claim that for yourself?

Now what? Is everyone "going to hell" according to your theory?

By what universal standard of morality is the US judged immoral? Is there reasoning involved or is the supposed "morality" just a religious construct?

Since all morality is merely personal opinion, there is no point comparing nations based on such standards. So, I will withdraw my grandiose statement that the US is the most immoral societies on the planet

Thank you.

So far you have presented nothing more than personal opinions, conjectures and platitudes. In debate personal opinions that are not verified by credible sources carry no weight; conjectures are unwelcome in serious debate and platitudes are unconvincing. I appreciate responses that demonstrate the emptiness of religious "argument".

Let the reader decide.

Exactly. My intent in debating apologists is to demonstrate that their "beliefs" are personal opinion based upon emotion – and that claims regarding supernaturalism cannot be defended in reasoned and fairly moderated debate.

I have no interest in attempting to convince or convert anyone or suggest what anyone should believe; however, I encourage people to use their mental abilities to make informed decisions based upon observation and evidence.

[Furrowed Brow]

Do unfavorable comments constitute PERSECUTION?

They can be;. harassment at work is a legal gravy train. Employers these days tend to be ultra cautious in this area. In my industry a grievence form is a standard form. This is whole area is a minefield.

I would say that those edited comments posted above do count as a form of harassment in my book. I've just been pulled up for an ad hominen. And I'm guilty. We all do it from time to time. But there is no clear line between a disapproving comment and harassment. And for harassment I read persecution.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do unfavorable comments constitute PERSECUTION?

They can be;. harassment at work is a legal gravy train. Employers these days tend to be ultra cautious in this area. In my industry a grievence form is a standard form. This is whole area is a minefield.

I would say that those edited comments posted above do count as a form of harassment in my book. I've just been pulled up for an ad hominen. And I'm guilty. We all do it from time to time. But there is no clear line between a disapproving comment and harassment. And for harassment I read persecution.

I differentiate between "harassment" and "persecution".

Merriam Webster

Persecute: to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

Harass: to annoy persistently

Annoy: to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts
2 : to harass especially by quick brief attacks

Perhaps Mr. Olavisjo feels "persecuted" by some anti-Christian comments but the YouTube comments cited do not meet my criteria for a charge of persecution (i.e., do not "cause to suffer".

Nearly everyone can claim to be "persecuted" if a few negative comments are all that is required. Atheists can feel persecuted because Theists make unfavorable or bigoted comments, for instance. If anyone can be classified as "persecuted" the term has lost its meaning.

[olavisjo]

Please do tell me how this is any different than theists claiming atheists are 'possessed by Satan', 'under Satan's influence', 'dead in sin', 'blinded by Satan'.

If there is a difference, it would be in the spirit that it was said. If the intent was to convey hatred, then there is no difference, but if the intent was to inform you that it is possible to be possessed by Satan without being aware of it and showing a way out of it, then it could be said it was done out of love. Whether Satan exists or not is not relevant, only that the person who made the claim honestly believes it. Just for the record, Jesus called his strongest disciple 'Satan'.

Need I remind you it has been determined that theists are allowed to declare atheists fools in these forums?

Again this should never be done out of hatred. The Bible does say...

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...

To say there is no Zeus, Thor, Jehovah, Allah etc, is one thing, but to make such a blanket statement that there is no possibility of any god, I will let you decide if that would not be a foolish thing to say.

Do unfavorable comments constitute PERSECUTION?

It is not that they are unfavorable, but rather it is the hatred they are meant to convey.

What term would you use if there was actual persecution (action) based upon your beliefs?

The same term, persecution. One leads to the other, for example the Nazi persecution of Jews started with hateful words followed by hateful actions.

If you are attempting to suggest that the "good" parts of the bible are not followed, perhaps you would be kind enough to identify the "good" parts and provide criteria by which they can be recognized by everyone.

This works for everyone.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Now what? Is everyone "going to hell" according to your theory?

Everyone deserves "going to hell" in my opinion according to the Bible, but those who sincerely ask for mercy will not have to go.

Exactly. My intent in debating apologists is to demonstrate that their "beliefs" are personal opinion based upon emotion – and that claims regarding super naturalism cannot be defended in reasoned and fairly moderated debate.

I am proof that they can be defended, as that is exactly what I am doing. How much weight my defence carries with readers is another matter.

[FinalEnigma]

What term would you use if there was actual persecution (action) based upon your beliefs?

The same term, persecution. One leads to the other, for example the Nazi persecution of Jews started with hateful words followed by hateful actions.

When the atheist collective starts putting christians in concentration camps and gunning them down in masses you can make that comparison. Until then please don't. Please respect the tremendous power that that has. I am not even Jewish and I am offended by that(and it has nothing to do with comparing atheists to nazis-the holocaust is just something that you don't touch without addressing properly)It was one of the most disgusting mass scale violations of humanity in history. Please use another example in the future.

And as a note, hatred is not persecution-its hatred. Now, I believe that hatred is not a valid, defensible stance-but it isn't persecution. It's not even anything to do with it.

(I'm starting to use dashes too much-I hope it doesn't carry over into my real writing rather than just conversational writing.)

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

And as a note, hatred is not persecution-its hatred. Now, I believe that hatred is not a valid, defensible stance-but it isn't persecution. It's not even anything to do with it.

Agreed. You can't run around, claiming religious persecution because someone has a negative opinion of your religion.

[olavisjo]

When the atheist collective starts putting Christians in concentration camps and gunning them down in masses you can make that comparison. Until then please don't.

I am not so sure I want to wait for that.
Hate is hate, it does not make any difference who hates who, it is all the same stuff. Christians who hate homosexuals are responsible for Matthew Shepard's death, just as much as the people who did the actual deed.

And as a note, hatred is not persecution-its hatred. Now, I believe that hatred is not a valid, defensible stance-but it isn't persecution. It's not even anything to do with it.

Hate is the fuel that feeds the fires of persecution.