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]

.

Hate is the fuel that feeds the fires of persecution.

I agree. Is hate preached in ANY instance by the Christian bible?

Is hate preached by ANY Christian ministers or church leaders?

Has preaching of hate by Christians been a factor in religious wars, crusades and the inquisition?

[FinalEnigma]

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.

I understand. I just ask that you not invoke the holocaust for comparison to anything unless that something is just as massive, disgusting, and violent as the holocaust was.

To compare the insults of a few extremist aggressive atheists(or the force behind them) to the holocaust is just blatantly wrong, and insulting.

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.

Yes, it is, and hatred of that sort is obviously wrong.
but the argument that
The cause of B (aggresive insults) = A(hatred);
A(Hatred) results in C(persecution);
therefore B=C
is not a valid argument.

[McCulloch]

Can anyone find the last post in this debate that addressed the question?

[olavisjo]

Can anyone find the last post in this debate that addressed the question?

Thank you, I get lost easy, we will come back to morality later. I think the last time we addressed the topic was about post 249, 22 posts ago.
The next chunk of evidence I would like to present is the universe itself. We accept the law of conservation of matter/energy, which states that matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed. Also Science tells us that the universe is approximately 13.73±.12 billion years old, this implies that it was created by something or someone. The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation.
When this evidence is coupled with the previous evidence that demonstrated that the universe is 'fine tuned', for life as we know it to exist, we have a strong case for a creator/god.
So we have The Argument from First Cause coupled with The Argument from the Anthropic Principle.
In spite of this simple yet strong evidence, many will still cling to their science-of-the-gaps philosophy, in the fleeting hope that science will someday pull a rabbit out of it's hat.

[Goat]

Can anyone find the last post in this debate that addressed the question?

Thank you, I get lost easy, we will come back to morality later. I think the last time we addressed the topic was about post 249, 22 posts ago.
The next chunk of evidence I would like to present is the universe itself. We accept the law of conservation of matter/energy, which states that matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed. Also Science tells us that the universe is approximately 13.73±.12 billion years old, this implies that it was created by something or someone. The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation.
When this evidence is coupled with the previous evidence that demonstrated that the universe is 'fine tuned', for life as we know it to exist, we have a strong case for a creator/god.
So we have The Argument from First Cause coupled with The Argument from the Anthropic Principle.
In spite of this simple yet strong evidence, many will still cling to their science-of-the-gaps philosophy, in the fleeting hope that science will someday pull a rabbit out of it's hat.

No.. it does not imply that 'it was created by someone'. It means that the expansion of what we view as the universe started happening back then. It makes no statement about how it was formed. Science makes no implications from before planck time currently.

[olavisjo]

Once you can accept the universe as matter, from an external cause, expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.

Can anyone find the last post in this debate that addressed the question?

Thank you, I get lost easy, we will come back to morality later. I think the last time we addressed the topic was about post 249, 22 posts ago.
The next chunk of evidence I would like to present is the universe itself. We accept the law of conservation of matter/energy, which states that matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed. Also Science tells us that the universe is approximately 13.73±.12 billion years old, this implies that it was created by something or someone. The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation.
When this evidence is coupled with the previous evidence that demonstrated that the universe is 'fine tuned', for life as we know it to exist, we have a strong case for a creator/god.
So we have The Argument from First Cause coupled with The Argument from the Anthropic Principle.
In spite of this simple yet strong evidence, many will still cling to their science-of-the-gaps philosophy, in the fleeting hope that science will someday pull a rabbit out of it's hat.

No.. it does not imply that 'it was created by someone'. It means that the expansion of what we view as the universe started happening back then. It makes no statement about how it was formed. Science makes no implications from before Planck time currently.

When you wrote 'it was created by someone' who were you quoting? It was not me.
You are certainly free to believe in your silent-science-of-the-gaps philosophy.

[bernee51]

Once you can accept the universe as matter, from an external cause, expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.

Can anyone find the last post in this debate that addressed the question?

Thank you, I get lost easy, we will come back to morality later. I think the last time we addressed the topic was about post 249, 22 posts ago.
The next chunk of evidence I would like to present is the universe itself. We accept the law of conservation of matter/energy, which states that matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed. Also Science tells us that the universe is approximately 13.73±.12 billion years old, this implies that it was created by something or someone. The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation.
When this evidence is coupled with the previous evidence that demonstrated that the universe is 'fine tuned', for life as we know it to exist, we have a strong case for a creator/god.
So we have The Argument from First Cause coupled with The Argument from the Anthropic Principle.
In spite of this simple yet strong evidence, many will still cling to their science-of-the-gaps philosophy, in the fleeting hope that science will someday pull a rabbit out of it's hat.

No.. it does not imply that 'it was created by someone'. It means that the expansion of what we view as the universe started happening back then. It makes no statement about how it was formed. Science makes no implications from before Planck time currently.

When you wrote 'it was created by someone' who were you quoting? It was not me.

That's true - you merely stated that implication was that it was created by something or someone. Which is false. All science is stating is that the universe as we know it appears to have come into existence 14 or so billion years ago.

You also stated "The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation." This too is an error. Time is a human concept. The universe does no know time.

[olavisjo]

That's true - you merely stated that implication was that it was created by something or someone. Which is false. All science is stating is that the universe as we know it appears to have come into existence 14 or so billion years ago.

Good enough, now where did it come from?

You also stated "The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation." This too is an error. Time is a human concept. The universe does not know time.

Do you have any evidence to support an eternal universe?

[Zzyzx]

.

That's true - you merely stated that implication was that it was created by something or someone. Which is false. All science is stating is that the universe as we know it appears to have come into existence 14 or so billion years ago.

Good enough, now where did it come from?

I don't know -- and neither do you -- and neither does anyone else.

I acknowledge that I don't know the origin of the universe and I do not make up stories about "supreme beings" to "explain" what I do not know.

Others make up stories and claim them to be true -- without evidence.

Do you have any evidence to support an eternal universe?

There is as much evidence to support an "eternal universe" as there is to support any of the thousands of "gods" -- NONE AT ALL.

[bernee51]

That's true - you merely stated that implication was that it was created by something or someone. Which is false. All science is stating is that the universe as we know it appears to have come into existence 14 or so billion years ago.

Good enough, now where did it come from?

It did not 'come from' anywhere. It followed from the universe as we 'do not know it'?

Do you know?

You also stated "The idea that the universe is eternal is inconsistent with modern observation." This too is an error. Time is a human concept. The universe does not know time.

Do you have any evidence to support an eternal universe?

Short answer - matter/energy can only be changed in form - it cannot be created or destroyed.