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.

[mwtech]

I believes the most powerful source of conceptions about God are through personal experience.

Richard Dawkins presents the best counter argument to the argument from personal experience, so I will just quote him.

"You say you have experienced God directly? Well some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, distinctly heard the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women, and he was locked up for life. George W. Bush says that God told him to invade Iraq. Individuals in asylums think they are Napoleon or Charlie Chaplin, or that the entire world is conspiring against them, or that they can broadcast their thoughts into other people's heads. We humour them but don't take their internally revealed beliefs seriously, mostly because not many people share them. Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous. Sam Harris was not being overly cynical when he wrote, in The End of Faith:

'We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called mad, psychotic or delusional....And yet, it is an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs certainly are.'

[instantc]

Richard Dawkins presents the best counter argument to the argument from personal experience, so I will just quote him.

"You say you have experienced God directly? Well some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you' ...

Why should personal experiences impress other people? But, if such experiences are clear, regular and consistent with the rest of one's experience, I see no reason why he should doubt them at face value just because they cannot be objectively verified. I think that the one who has these experiences is, at least to some extent, justified in believing in them, while for others the fact that someone else has had God-experiences doesn't do much anything.

[McCulloch]

An extensive search on my own convinced me the King James Bible was true.

What is it specifically that convinced you that the King James Bible was true. Is the translation done in 1611 and revised numerous times until a standard edition of 1789 was established, in some way better than subsequent scholarship?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell]

Theory is theory and not an undisputable fact. Reputable scientists today still admit they have a lot to learn about the universe and its beginning. Until they have learned all there is to learn, their theory is only theory. In the past and even in recent history scientist have openly made claims about the universe and later forced to retract those claims because they were false. Before anything can be accepted as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, everything about it must be perfectly understood and proven beyond ANY doubt. In a nutshell, science will and must remain theory, and need be accepted that it is subject to change, pro or con, until there is no more to learn about the science of the universe. Until then, all claims based on current understanding are subject to change.

To prove science right or wrong you have to be a scientist knowledgeable of EVERYTHING related to it, and have perfect understanding about it. Unless a person fits into this category, it would be a drastic mistake to accept and believe all claims about the universe and all in it, as being the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No reputable scientist will make this claim. If any of them do, they are foolish, because they openly admit they do not understand all there is to know.

The responses to all my posts in this forum have been negative, based on science, which is not proven facts not subject to change. I will add to this in my next post. This and the next post do concern the subject this sub-forum.

So, you are saying 'We don't know everything, so there must be a God'?? That is a horrible piece of reasoning.

Yes, science takes things provisionally, and will modifiy it's conclusions based on new evidence.

I don't see any evidence for a deity. When it comes to 'being negative', perhaps it is because your claims are being challenged. This is a debate subforum, and claims and arguments have to be backed up with reasoning and evidence. Quite often, reasoning is challenged to. That is the nature of debate.

[mwtech]

Richard Dawkins presents the best counter argument to the argument from personal experience, so I will just quote him.

"You say you have experienced God directly? Well some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you' ...

Why should personal experiences impress other people? But, if such experiences are clear, regular and consistent with the rest of one's experience, I see no reason why he should doubt them at face value just because they cannot be objectively verified. I think that the one who has these experiences is, at least to some extent, justified in believing in them, while for others the fact that someone else has had God-experiences doesn't do much anything.

They shouldn't impress other people. But if you are trying to convert others and debate in favor of God, offering personal experience as a reason for belief will not convince anybody. Seeing as that is the purpose of this thread, personal experiences hold no weight.
Not to say that religious beliefs are delusional, (some may be, but I think most are just a result of wishful thinking and a strong desire or willingness to believe) but does the fact that the beliefs of those who think they are Napolean seem consitent and rational to the one experiencing these thoughts make it true? Obviously the person will truly believe this despite evidence whther rational or not, that is the nature of delusion. This does not make the belief externally justified.

[Zzyzx]

.

They shouldn't impress other people. But if you are trying to convert others and debate in favor of God, offering personal experience as a reason for belief will not convince anybody.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that testimonials claiming personal god-experiences are unlikely to convince people who tend to think critically / analytically and to not be gullible.

Of course, that leaves a LOT of people who ARE convinced by unverified testimonials and emotional appeals.

Seeing as that is the purpose of this thread, personal experiences hold no weight.

Agreed. In debate such testimonials (ancient or modern) are less than convincing and unverifiable / unsupportable

Not to say that religious beliefs are delusional, (some may be, but I think most are just a result of wishful thinking and a strong desire or willingness to believe)

Agreed

[instantc]

but does the fact that the beliefs of those who think they are Napolean seem consitent and rational to the one experiencing these thoughts make it true? Obviously the person will truly believe this despite evidence whther rational or not, that is the nature of delusion.

The thing is that the experience of being Napoleon is not consistent with the general experience, as we all know that Napoleon died long ago. In my view, one is justified in trusting his direct experience at face value in the absence of a defeater, and the bulk of your experience of the world indeed defeats the notion that you might be Napoleon.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 346 by instantc]

There are enumerable UFO sightings every year, and many many UFO abduction experiences. Many of these experiences are consistent and agree with other UFO sightings. These are internally consistent.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell]

Theory is theory and not an undisputable fact. Reputable scientists today still admit they have a lot to learn about the universe and its beginning. Until they have learned all there is to learn, their theory is only theory. In the past and even in recent history scientist have openly made claims about the universe and later forced to retract those claims because they were false. Before anything can be accepted as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, everything about it must be perfectly understood and proven beyond ANY doubt. In a nutshell, science will and must remain theory, and need be accepted that it is subject to change, pro or con, until there is no more to learn about the science of the universe. Until then, all claims based on current understanding are subject to change.

To prove science right or wrong you have to be a scientist knowledgeable of EVERYTHING related to it, and have perfect understanding about it. Unless a person fits into this category, it would be a drastic mistake to accept and believe all claims about the universe and all in it, as being the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No reputable scientist will make this claim. If any of them do, they are foolish, because they openly admit they do not understand all there is to know.

The responses to all my posts in this forum have been negative, based on science, which is not proven facts not subject to change. I will add to this in my next post. This and the next post do concern the subject this sub-forum.

So, you are saying 'We don't know everything, so there must be a God'?? That is a horrible piece of reasoning.

Yes, science takes things provisionally, and will modifiy it's conclusions based on new evidence.

I don't see any evidence for a deity. When it comes to 'being negative', perhaps it is because your claims are being challenged. This is a debate subforum, and claims and arguments have to be backed up with reasoning and evidence. Quite often, reasoning is challenged to. That is the nature of debate.

1611 and 1769

I am not saying because science doesn't know everything there must be a God. What I'm saying is science has a lot to learn about the beginning of the universe.
You know as well as I that anything from the Bible or related to the Bible is neither considered nor acceptable here by the vast majority. You also know the only evidence of a God and creation is the Bible. All other material available and related to it is also not acceptable here or to me.

This is suppose to be a debate between science and Bible. Where is the debate if the Bible is not accepted as part of the debate? There is no debate.

[kenblogton]

.

It appears as though personal conceptions of gods are influenced by what people hear and read (opinions of others) about gods. Do you disagree?

I believe the most powerful source of conceptions about God are through personal experience.

I disagree.

Personal emotional / psychological / mental episodes can be highly influential. However, the priest class has had thousands of years to perfect techniques and tactics used to convince people that they have special knowledge of supernatural entities and events. Ancient religion promoters are still revered for their opinions and stories about "gods."

Without being taught or indoctrinated with such influences, or with different teachings / indoctrinations people "experience" different "gods" or "god events."

I believe the most important influences are personal, not the sales pitch of the priest class. My parents sent me to a nominal Protestant church for 10 years, and the only thing that stuck with me was the hymn JESUS LOVES ME. I went to Roman Catholic churches for 10 years, and all I retained was an awareness that I would never be good enough to merit heaven.
I've had a number of personal encounters with God. Among other things I learned in those encounters was that God was not only the Creator God of the Deists, God was also a Personal God who loved me and would shepherd my personal growth if I accepted that divine inspiration.
The book by DavidPaul Doyle WHEN GOD SPOKE TO ME: The Inspiring Stories of Ordinary People Who Have Received Divine Guidance and Wisdom published in 2010 by Career Press of Franklin Lakes, NJ gives many illustrations of God communicating with people, some of whom were attempting to communicate with God and some where God initiated the communication, as in my case. Everyone of those people found those personal experiences more valuable and meaningful than any religious preaching.
kenblogton