Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[mgb]

It depends on what you mean by evidence. From an intelellectual point of view 'evidence' can go either way. I don't believe in God because of evidence in this sense (although it is supportive of my beliefs). I believe in God because I know God. For me God is a person I am aware of.

I was once a very lukewarm atheist of sorts and I developed an interest in the question of God. I experienced almost a compulsion to answer this question and thought very intensely about it for some time. But I did not 'figure out' the answer in intellectual terms. God just came to me and I knew S/he existed. For me this is evidence.

[ChristShepherd]

I have another serious problem with the cosmological argument: what does a "first cause" have to do with any religionist' god?

If you're ready to call any sort of first cause "god", then sure, maybe "god" exists.

This is, however, a terrible argument for the existence of Abrahamic gods. It seems ridiculous to pretend to link these to a "first cause". The Cosmological argument doesn't have the slightest clue what it's arguing for.

All the philosophical arguments for the existence of a personal and loving deity are terminally flawed. If anyone disagrees, let them bring up an argument which they believe isn't fallacious.

-Woland

So how did the Universe begin?
If you believe that God created the Universe you have to explain where God originated from.
Christians say that God always existed.
But there can be other explanations for the origin of the universe. Perhaps energy and matter always existed and through some process that we don't quite understand matter and energy changed to form a living cell which replicated and through evolution formed life on earth as we know it. Right now we can't replicate a process in the lab to form a living cell. But if Scientists do that will be the end of religion. I think they are getting close, but who knows when or if.

The point is ....Is it easier to believe that matter and energy always existed or is it easier to believe that a SUPER being called God always existed?

In my view, it is easier to believe that matter and energy always existed. To believe in a God requires belief in the supernatural. As I see it no supernatural event has ever been documented by a reliable source.

In my opinion, eventually Science will provide us all the answers. The Bible is just a dead end that cannot provide any new answers. But Science is an open road to new technology, and information.

[Zzyzx]

.

So how did the Universe begin?

I have no knowledge of the beginning of the universe -- and neither has anyone else. Some are forthright enough to identify their proposals as theories, while others claim their proposals are TRUTH (writ large) from "god" (via ancient stories and opinion pieces).

If you believe that God created the Universe you have to explain where God originated from. Christians say that God always existed.

If one can say that "god always existed" without evidence (other than ancient opinions), opponents can equally well say "the universe always existed" (without evidence other than modern hypotheses).

Creationists often (usually?) attempt to claim higher moral ground for their beliefs based upon worship practices rather than evidence that they know or speak truthfully and accurately.

In my opinion, eventually Science will provide us all the answers. The Bible is just a dead end that cannot provide any new answers. But Science is an open road to new technology, and information.

I agree (without including the word "all" since there are likely some things about the universe that are beyond human comprehension). BTW -- this does NOT allow a supernatural "god" to be inserted to "explain" what we do not understand. In my opinion it is far better to say "I don't know" than to concoct "explanations" for what we do not understand (as has been particularly characteristic of past centuries and millennia)

[EduChris]

...experience demonstrates the wisdom in not jumping into un-evidenced conclusions...particularly when those who has take the leap previously have never been heard from again...

Your logic doesn't hold in all cases. If you've reached an impasse, and if doing nothing isn't going to resolve your predicament, then doing something might be your only hope--especially if lots of people have done that "something" before and claim to have been blessed in so doing.

What's this business about "never being heard from again"? It sounds as though you think there is some risk in choosing hope, as opposed to demanding a certainty which isn't even available to humans. To me that's not logical at all.

Choosing hope costs me nothing, and in return I gain hope. It's a win-win proposition for me.

[Zzyzx]

.

Choosing hope costs me nothing, and in return I gain hope. It's a win-win proposition for me.

Hope for WHAT?

One "hopes" for what they LACK. What is/was lacking that is "hoped" for?

[EduChris]

...One "hopes" for what they LACK. What is/was lacking that is "hoped" for?

I'm hoping that in the long run, we and our planet and our solar system and our universe are not all dead. I'm hoping that we can have a future that means something. I'm hoping that love, rather than death, holds the last word for all of us.

[mgb]

So how did the Universe begin?
If you believe that God created the Universe you have to explain where God originated from.

Perhaps the universe existed in God as pure knowledge and the universe that exists in time is a physical analogue of that knowledge. An example of this idea is the way, for example, a quadratic equation can exist as a pure abstraction in our minds - it is a concept involving numbers and the relationship between them. This concept can be made physically manifest as a graph on a piece of paper; pure thought made visible as a physical analogue.

I seems 'easier' to me to accept the existence of pure knowledge than to accept that the universe simply exists as it is 'ready made' with all its complexity outside of pure thought and mathematics.

[Flail]

EcuChris wrote:

If you've reached an impasse, and if doing nothing isn't going to resolve your predicament, then doing something might be your only hope--especially if lots of people have done that "something" before and claim to have been blessed in so doing.

Good point. But what impasse have you reached, what predicament are you in that makes you take the risk of jumping to conclusions without evidence?
EduChris wrote:

What's this business about "never being heard from again"? It sounds as though you think there is some risk in choosing hope, as opposed to demanding a certainty which isn't even available to humans. To me that's not logical at all. If you call it hope and bring everyone along with you, I can accept that. But when you call it salvation and leave so many behind, I call that selfish and misguided.

EduChris wrote:

Choosing hope costs me nothing, and in return I gain hope. It's a win-win proposition for me.

Again, hope is one thing, we all have hopes. But hope should include everyone not just Christians. And hoping to have your sins forgiven seems a lesser ideal than working them off by effort and atonement. I would much prefer doing my own homework than have Jesus do it for me.

[Zzyzx]

.

...One "hopes" for what they LACK. What is/was lacking that is "hoped" for?

I'm hoping that in the long run, we and our planet and our solar system and our universe are not all dead. I'm hoping that we can have a future that means something. I'm hoping that love, rather than death, holds the last word for all of us.

That appears to me as nothing more than "hope" for an "afterlife".

Everyone is free to "hope" for whatever they wish -- in fact, in my view, hope IS wish.

I, for one among many, WORK toward making the present life, the only one we know we have, as productive and pleasant as reasonably possible for ourselves and others (with emphasis on "reasonably"). Each of us can reasonably only expect to affect a limited "sphere of influence" for a limited time.

Grandiose wishing for things we cannot influence does not accomplish that objective, and may detract from what CAN be done in the here-and-now by wasting time, effort, energy (and often wealth).

Exactly the same reasoning can be applied to pondering and pontificating about the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, the desires of "gods", the hypothetical "afterlife", the "meaning" of life, etc. Instead of focusing on such "lofty" matters, I prefer to volunteer at the Food Bank to actually help provide groceries for families in need or in transition (and will be putting in a lot of hours related to Thanksgiving and Christmas). That is an example of WORKING to positively influence that which CAN be affected by personal effort and thought. No "wishing" or "hoping" necessary.

[Argenta]

Apologies for my absence just when the discussion was getting interesting. No disrespect intended.

The discussion has fragmented a little so if I can stand back and summarise. My OP asked whether evidence can lead to a belief in God. Sadly, from the theist side, only one, EduChris, really engaged the central issue. His experience was that, (based on a fallacious argument) he was persuaded that the existence of a god is likely and, driven by an emotional need for hope, chose to embrace Christianity. Since that time, experience and study of other religions has confirmed his original preference for Christianity. (Correct me if my summary is unfair.)

So, for EduChris at least, we can see that belief in God serves to satisfy emotional needs, thus supporting my proposition. One theist is a very small sample so I would love to hear from others, especially those who deny my proposition…

Argenta