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.

[catholic crusader]

dead body coming back to life does violate what we know of nature.

Do you have such a complete understanding of natural laws that you can claim that resurrection violates them?

Are you attempting to argue the oppsite -- that the truly dead can or do come back to life?

I do not have sufficient understanding to claim either way.

I don't claim to know.

I guess I'm agnostic on this issue.

I can't prove that it isn't possible. I can't claim to have complete or totaly understanding. I can't claim to know.

And I think it is arrogance for some one to claim to know.

So I don't know.

and since I'm not christian and I don't have beliefs that are contingent upon resurection for validity.

I also don't really care.

I just saw a claim that streched farther than it could be supported.

And I believe claims like that should always be challeged.

Skepticism should be a two way street.

Or else it leads to blind faith.

In fact it's probably more important to be skeptical of your own claims than any body elses.

[Goose]

Tell me exactly why contradictory accounts written decades after an alleged supernatural event whose authors had a biased agenda could be considered
evidence that the supernatural event actually occurred? It might be evidence of belief, but I don't see how it can be evidence of it actually occurring.

How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assissinated?

How does that answer the question?

You didn't really ask a question. You simply stated your personal reasons for rejecting. I want to know the method you, Zzyzx and co. use to reject the resurrection but accept other events. Let's have it so we can see if you method is flawed or biased. So far to date on this forum it basically seems to be what you guys like and don't like. Pretty close?

That is known as 'diversion'. On the other hand, crossing the Rubicon or being assassinated does not violate natural laws. Being resurrected does. Crossing the Rubicon and being assassinated is not an extraordinary event, coming back from the dead is.

The claim that extraordinary events require extra ordinary evidence is another tacit admission that sufficient evidence exists. If there were insufficient evidence you could simply fail the event in question with an objective method.

Your logic seems to be trying to imply that 'We can't prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or was assassinated, so Jesus was resurrected is God". Sorry, but that
logic just does not cut it.

You guys squirm every time. I just want to know your method for establishing history that doesn't involve committing a logical fallacy such as Begging the Question or having a bias toward Christianity.

Oh, we have an extant letter dated from 43 c.e. that was physically written within 3 months of Caesars assassination from Gaius Asinius Pollio to Cicero. We have the original autograph of that letter, and there are no political or theological agenda's to it.

And what does it say goat? What is the method you use to establish that he wrote it? Oh, and yes it is a biased source - Roman.

Your attempt at diversion is noted, and what is also noted is the fact you do not have anything but anonymous writings from at least 35 years later by people who were not even in Judah.

And your lack of a transparent method is noted.

[Goose]

.

How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assissinated?

Has Caesar become an icon for a new religion? Is there a claim that he died and came back to life -- or that he is "one" with his father in heaven? Is there some great significance attached to his supposed river crossings or assassination?

Are you now trying to answer a historical question with a philosophical one?

.Instead of discussing Caesar or King Tut (and you seem inclined to do rather than discussing the topic at hand) let's discuss whether a dead body came back to life in reality or whether the tale is fiction or fable.

Let's start with your method for determing what IS fact and fiction from the ancient world.

.Some claim that the claimed event actually, literally happened in the real world a couple thousand years ago -- and that the supposed "resurrection" is "proof" that "god" exists. There are many who do not accept that claim -- and ask that it be verified with evidence other than religious dogma and literature.

And they are free to make as many requests as they wish. But historians don't do that. They evaluate the evidence at hand using transparent methods.

[Zzyzx]

.

In fact it's probably more important to be skeptical of your own claims than any body elses.

Since you claim to not know whether dead bodies come back to life or not, are you willing to accept a modern claim that a group leader died and came back to life?

Would you ask for evidence before believing such a tale? Would stories told by his friends and supporters be adequate "proof" for you to accept the modern "resurrection"?

[Goat]

Tell me exactly why contradictory accounts written decades after an alleged supernatural event whose authors had a biased agenda could be considered
evidence that the supernatural event actually occurred? It might be evidence of belief, but I don't see how it can be evidence of it actually occurring.

How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assissinated?

How does that answer the question?

You didn't really ask a question. You simply stated your personal reasons for rejecting. I want to know the method you, Zzyzx and co. use to reject the resurrection but accept other events. Let's have it so we can see if you method is flawed or biased. So far to date on this forum it basically seems to be what you guys like and don't like. Pretty close?

That is known as 'diversion'. On the other hand, crossing the Rubicon or being assassinated does not violate natural laws. Being resurrected does. Crossing the Rubicon and being assassinated is not an extraordinary event, coming back from the dead is.

The claim that extraordinary events require extra ordinary evidence is another tacit admission that sufficient evidence exists. If there were insufficient evidence you could simply fail the event in question with an objective method.

Your logic seems to be trying to imply that 'We can't prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or was assassinated, so Jesus was resurrected is God". Sorry, but that
logic just does not cut it.

You guys squirm every time. I just want to know your method for establishing history that doesn't involve committing a logical fallacy such as Begging the Question or having a bias toward Christianity.

Oh, we have an extant letter dated from 43 c.e. that was physically written within 3 months of Caesars assassination from Gaius Asinius Pollio to Cicero. We have the original autograph of that letter, and there are no political or theological agenda's to it.

And what does it say goat? What is the method you use to establish that he wrote it? Oh, and yes it is a biased source - Roman.

Your attempt at diversion is noted, and what is also noted is the fact you do not have anything but anonymous writings from at least 35 years later by people who were not even in Judah.

And your lack of a transparent method is noted.

Squirm every time?? More like roll eyes, because that is a logical fallacy that keeps on being repeated over and over again.

My method is very clear. Claims that are extraordinary need extraordinary evidence. The claims about Caesar are things that can be reproduced physically today. On the other hand, I can be skeptical about the way that Suetonius claimed Julius Caesar was cremated.


When it comes to the resurrection, the evidence is that the story developed over time. The later the book, the more elaborate the story. In Marks rendition, it seems to be more spiritual than anything else, the others have it as physical.

You have no physical evidence of any resurrection. For that matter, you don't have any primary evidence that Jesus existed at all.

[olavisjo]

When it comes to the resurrection, the evidence is that the story developed over time. The later the book, the more elaborate the story. In Marks rendition, it seems to be more spiritual than anything else, the others have it as physical.

You have no physical evidence of any resurrection. For that matter, you don't have any primary evidence that Jesus existed at all.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

The body was obviously not there, so why would you say that Marks resurrection was not physical?

A good topic for debate is how does a story develop over almost 4 millenia and end up convincing more than half the worlds population that it is not only truth but the word of God?
Do you think that we could start a new story where we convince the world that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. did not actually die but are alive to this day? Do you think that people were more gullible 2000 years ago?

[olavisjo]

There is ample evidence that humans are easily fooled. Ask any anthropologist, historian, salesperson, psychologist, educator, researcher, politician, priest, rabbi or evangelist.

You will never get lost if you have a good GPS system (I used to say compass and map). Likewise you will not be easily fooled if you have the Spirit of God dwelling in you and you know your Bible well.

But we are easily fooled.

Speak for yourself, please.

I am. I was once a Christian.

Would you be willing to tell me why and how you came to call yourself a Christian? Who or what fooled you? How did you get straight after being fooled?
To your list of arguments for God you may add the testimony of other Christians as the Bible says...

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Here is my testimony...

This is my story. It was not at all dramatic as some are, it was about November 15, 1978. I was 19 and a hard core atheist, I believed that science was the answer to all our problems, or the only hope for an answer. I used to make fun of Christians and their silly superstition and them reading a little too much into their Bibles. I was in the US Navy and our ship was in dry dock to be totally refurbished, my job was to remove the old paint from the walls and ceilings (bulkheads and overheads). It was hard work to hold heavy needle guns and disk sanders up all day long for 11 hours a day in the 100 plus heat of a Long Beach summer.
I had been very good in science and math at school and I had wanted to go to college and become a scientist or computer engineer, but out of anger towards my father I joined the Navy and I was now trapped in a place I could not get out of.
Some of my friends had introduced me to drugs mostly pot and I found that the drugs could relive me of the depression that I was in due to my Navy prison sentence. I did understand that drugs were only a temporary solution, and I wanted to find a real and permanent solution to the basic problem of my misery, and I found a book that promised to do just that, I don't remember the book but it was about Eastern Religions, I did not really believe that it would work and seemed like it would be a lot of study and devotion to self brainwash myself into finding Nirvana, it just opened my mind to the idea that there may be more to life than what science can provide.
So, on that Wednesday in 1978 I woke up an atheist and before I went to bed I was a Christian. I don't remember what caused the change, I just know that I did change. A half dozen of my druggie friends had turned their life over to Jesus and that may have had a big influence over me, just to see that it was possible to make a 180 change overnight. From that day on I knew that God is, and my life has not been the same.
That was the greatest moment in my life, and when asked why it happened to me, I can only look back to a moment 5 years before. I wanted to study math over the summer so I talked my father into enrolling me in a private school called "The King's Academy" in Palm Beach Florida. I wanted to study math but the reason I chose that school was because I saw the girls from there in the public library, wearing the plaid skirts that private schools are known for, they were hot.
At the Academy we had to sit through a half hour of indoctrination and Bible thumping every morning, it did not bother me all that much it was just plain boring, but school is supposed to be boring.
Then one day I was in the back of the school bus talking to a young Japanese kid named David and we got into a conversation about how a person becomes a Christian and he just told me that I can become one right now by just repeating some words that he said. I did not think that it would change me but I did it anyway, I don't remember the exact words but it had to do with admitting I was a sinner and asking God to forgive me and inviting Jesus to come and live in me. It was all pretty corny stuff and if anybody else had been in that bus, I don't think that I could have gone through with it.
And that was it, that is all I had to do to become a Christian, now I know that I will live with God forever.

David, if you read this "Thank You" I will see you in Heaven, if not sooner.

[McCulloch]

You will never get lost if you have a good GPS system (I used to say compass and map). Likewise you will not be easily fooled if you have the Spirit of God dwelling in you and you know your Bible well.

How do you know that the Bible and what you experience as the Spirit are a reliable guide? I cannot navigate modern city streets with Christopher Columbus' map of the Atlantic.

Would you be willing to tell me why and how you came to call yourself a Christian? Who or what fooled you? How did you get straight after being fooled?

Christianity attracted me because it provided simple and sure answers to difficult questions at a time in my life that I needed certainty. I left when discovering after searching for the reasons for the beliefs that the evidential foundations for it were non-existent.

To your list of arguments for God you may add the testimony of other Christians

Not to discount this as a method for evangelism, people do not believe because someone has a testimony. They may believe because the testimony includes arguments and reasons that convince them. Those arguments are either the ones listed in the OP or some others. I think that we can all agree that, "I believe because Carl believes" is a very weak argument. Testimonials, like yours may help those who are skeptical to see that others, maybe even others that they respect, do not reject these myths and so it becomes more acceptable to them .

[Zzyzx]

.

The body was obviously not there, so why would you say that Marks resurrection was not physical?

Can you state with certainty “the body was not there�? Can you state with certainty that there was a body? Can you identify the tomb in question?

There is a tale in a storybook written when people had less knowledge about life (and death) than we now have. We now know that irreversible changes occur after death -- and know that there is no evidence of a dead body coming back to life. That evidently only occurs in stories.

The tale in the storybook claims that a dead body was put into a tomb and that later the tomb was found to be empty. The tale has several versions that claim different numbers of people observing the empty tomb with incomplete or absent information about supposed witnesses. The tale attempts to suggest that the body, if present, could not have been removed surreptitiously (guards, large rock).

The tale also includes mention of an “angel� (a form of supernatural being) present at the tomb to announce the absence of a body.

The account in the storybook is not verified by other accounts of a body "rising from the dead" or by any accounts other than those of associates that the “resurrected� person appeared in real life after the supposed execution.

All the proposed "information" or "facts" are contained in a story that cannot be verified. The storybook containing the tale also presents many incredible claims regarding supernatural beings (gods, devils, angels, etc), talking snakes and donkeys, magical tricks (called “miracles� by believers), and other nature-defying events – NONE of which can be shown to be literally true or real and none of which are verified by other sources. Even the primary characters appearing in the story cannot be shown to have existed in sources outside the storybook.


I have no confidence that the tale is anything more than myth, fable or fiction. If the creator of the universe (or his “son�) visited the Earth for thirty years, was killed and “rose from the dead� and (“ascended into heaven�) I would expect the events to be less obscure and secretive and less focused upon a “chosen people� if such a thing actually happened.

That many people believe the tale is not evidence of truth. However, those who wish to believe that by worshiping invisible, undetectable, unverifiable supernatural beings they “will not die but will have everlasting life� (or that they will go to “heaven�) are certainly welcome to do so. However, they are not entitled to claim truth for their beliefs without ability to demonstrate truth – in my opinion, of course.

[Goose]

Squirm every time?? More like roll eyes, because that is a logical fallacy that keeps on being repeated over and over again.

Why don't you name the fallacy and site where I've committed it.

My method is very clear. Claims that are extraordinary need extraordinary evidence...

That is not a method. That is a subjective statement.

When it comes to the resurrection, the evidence is that the story developed over time. The later the book, the more elaborate the story. In Marks rendition, it seems to be more spiritual than anything else, the others have it as physical.

That is subjective as well. I could build a case that that there is a dumbing-down of the supernatural elements in certain instances even assuming Markian priority.

You have no physical evidence of any resurrection. For that matter, you don't have any primary evidence that Jesus existed at all.

So something from ancient history needs "physcial" evidence to be true? Since when did that become a criteria used by historians? BTW, I thought texts were "physical" evidence. I must be wrong.

As a side note and not to derail this thread any further but what method do you use to determine if a source is primary or not? Perhaps you'll join me in the thread "Are the Gospels Hopelessly Anonymous?" It was started several months ago and had only one response from a Christian.