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.

[Goat]

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.

False analogy. Trying to equate the mundane occurence of the assassination of Julius Caesar to the supernatural (i.e. impossible by laws of nature as we know it)
event of the resurrection.

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

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

Not nearly as subjective as you think. We can duplicate physically the event of crossing the Rubicon, and political leaders do get assassinated. Those events are not extraordinary. However, the 'resurrection' is supposedly a one time event that left no physical evidence that we have to be able to examine. We only have 4th or 5th hand accounts by religious believers 35 or more years after the alleged event.

I'll tell you what. Duplicate the resurrection or show a set of experiments on how it can be either accomplished, or falsified. Then I will concede that the resurrection is a possibility.

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.

For history .. (we will go with the relevant definition of "Primary Source" , a primary source is document or other artifact from an authoritative source written about the time being studied, usually with direct personal knowledge of the event.

Since the earliest of the Gospels apparently was written after the Jewish revolt, from someone who probably lived in Rome, the changes of him being a primary source is between little and none at all. Tradition has Mark (the oldest of the Gospels) being written by a disciple of Peter. (4th century claim). The other gospels were later, and Matthew and Luke apparently used Mark as a source. This removes them from being a primary source either.

Bump the thread, and we can examine the internal evidence of the Gospels.

[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.

False analogy. Trying to equate the mundane occurence of the assassination of Julius Caesar to the supernatural (i.e. impossible by laws of nature as we know it)
event of the resurrection.

The assissination of Caesar or any political leader is hardly "mundane." So really you take "extraordinary" to mean supernatural. At any rate, this is not what is happening. There is no analogy in the sense you mean it. I've merely asked you to give a method for determining how we establish the trueth of a cliamed historical event. You seem to reject it on the basis that it IS supernatural. If not, why wouldn't you be willing to subject a supernatural claim to the same method as we would use for a natural one?

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

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

Not nearly as subjective as you think. We can duplicate physically the event of crossing the Rubicon, and political leaders do get assassinated.

Sure. But can you duplicate the actual event itself? No you can not. So your method has a serious flaw.

I'll tell you what. Duplicate the resurrection or show a set of experiments on how it can be either accomplished, or falsified. Then I will concede that the resurrection is a possibility.

Not so fast. You must also subject other claims to the same method. I'll tell you what. You re-create the exact scenario of the crossing and assissination of Caesar with the same people and details and I'll buy your argument. Don't forget your time machine.

For history .. (we will go with the relevant definition of "Primary Source" , a primary source is document or other artifact from an authoritative source written about the time being studied, usually with direct personal knowledge of the event.

Since the earliest of the Gospels apparently was written after the Jewish revolt, from someone who probably lived in Rome, the changes of him being a primary source is between little and none at all. Tradition has Mark (the oldest of the Gospels) being written by a disciple of Peter. (4th century claim). The other gospels were later, and Matthew and Luke apparently used Mark as a source. This removes them from being a primary source either.

Bump the thread, and we can examine the internal evidence of the Gospels.

OK, rather than derail this thread any further I'll find the thread.

[Goat]

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.

False analogy. Trying to equate the mundane occurence of the assassination of Julius Caesar to the supernatural (i.e. impossible by laws of nature as we know it)
event of the resurrection.

The assissination of Caesar or any political leader is hardly "mundane." So really you take "extraordinary" to mean supernatural. At any rate, this is not what is happening. There is no analogy in the sense you mean it. I've merely asked you to give a method for determining how we establish the trueth of a cliamed historical event. You seem to reject it on the basis that it IS supernatural. If not, why wouldn't you be willing to subject a supernatural claim to the same method as we would use for a natural one?

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

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

Not nearly as subjective as you think. We can duplicate physically the event of crossing the Rubicon, and political leaders do get assassinated.

Sure. But can you duplicate the actual event itself? No you can not. So your method has a serious flaw.

I'll tell you what. Duplicate the resurrection or show a set of experiments on how it can be either accomplished, or falsified. Then I will concede that the resurrection is a possibility.

Not so fast. You must also subject other claims to the same method. I'll tell you what. You re-create the exact scenario of the crossing and assissination of Caesar with the same people and details and I'll buy your argument. Don't forget your time machine.

For history .. (we will go with the relevant definition of "Primary Source" , a primary source is document or other artifact from an authoritative source written about the time being studied, usually with direct personal knowledge of the event.

Since the earliest of the Gospels apparently was written after the Jewish revolt, from someone who probably lived in Rome, the changes of him being a primary source is between little and none at all. Tradition has Mark (the oldest of the Gospels) being written by a disciple of Peter. (4th century claim). The other gospels were later, and Matthew and Luke apparently used Mark as a source. This removes them from being a primary source either.

Bump the thread, and we can examine the internal evidence of the Gospels.

OK, rather than derail this thread any further I'll find the thread.

Why, in comparison to the supernatural event of a resurrection, sure it is. Can you show me any barrier to any leader being assassinated? How is that against the laws of nature, and has it happened more than a dozen times in the last century?

If you can point to a modern assassination , then it is a 'mundane' event, since it happens. It might not happen often, but it happens often enough.

[olavisjo]

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.

That is silly, why would you expect a map of the ocean to be useful in a city? But honestly I have trusted in Gods navigation system for many years and it has never steered me wrong.

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.

You joined a religion, organization or club. To become a Christian you need to be born again, it is a real experience, you become a new creature.

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 .

Maybe not because of Carl but because of Paul or a number of other people. There is nothing more convincing than seeing someone you know and respect convert. Can you imagine if Zzyzx were to find Jesus, I think that half of the Atheists on this forum would also convert.
Although it is a rare event to see someone convert because of a good argument, that is just not the way it happens as Brian Holtz has observed.

[Zzyzx]

.
Mundane: "of, relating to, or characteristic of the world; or characterized by the practical, transitory, and ordinary."

Assassination is characteristic of the world and is not terribly uncommon.

"Resurrection" (rising from the dead) has never been shown to have happened other than in myth, fable or fiction. Thus it is not known to be "of the world" and is certainly not ordinary in this world.

[McCulloch]

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.

That is silly, why would you expect a map of the ocean to be useful in a city? But honestly I have trusted in Gods navigation system for many years and it has never steered me wrong.

How do you know?

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.

You joined a religion, organization or club. To become a Christian you need to be born again, it is a real experience, you become a new creature.

That is a topic for another thread. How do you know that you are a new creature? Do you have new memories, new thoughts, different abilities?

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 .

Maybe not because of Carl but because of Paul or a number of other people. There is nothing more convincing than seeing someone you know and respect convert. Can you imagine if Zzyzx were to find Jesus, I think that half of the Atheists on this forum would also convert.

I doubt it. We don't believe or disbelieve based on others beliefs or disbeliefs. Give us evidence and reasons. Please.

Although it is a rare event to see someone convert because of a good argument, that is just not the way it happens as Brian Holtz has observed.

Thus religion is irrational.

[otseng]

I guess we'll just fire all the scientists. We don't need them we have the ALMIGHTY "goat".

Knower of everything on hand to answer our questions.

So while science has been hard at work trying figure everything out. You knew all along and you were just holding out on us.

We don't need science any more we have Goat.

Moderator note:

Comments such as this are directed at the person, rather than at the arguments. Please avoid making any type of comments directed at a poster. Thanks.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can you imagine if Zzyzx were to find Jesus, I think that half of the Atheists on this forum would also convert.

I doubt it. We don't believe or disbelieve based on others beliefs or disbeliefs. Give us evidence and reasons. Please.

If Zzyzx were to announce that he “found Jesus� the realist members would likely conclude that either 1) It was a joke, or 2) Zzyzx had gone soft in the head and lost his marbles. The former is much more likely.

McCulloch is right. I doubt that any one of us would be likely to become religious because someone else chose to do so. Non-Theists seem to be more independent of thought than Theists and less likely to follow the herd or follow a person. There have been indications that Theists do not understand that independent and analytical thinking tends to be characteristic of many Non-Theists.

As much as I respect McCulloch or Bernee or several other very capable Non-Theistic debaters, if they chose to “find Jesus� I would doubt their sanity. I have had that experience in personal life – and literally doubted the sanity of my friends (who became ex-friends when they could not refrain from “god talk� at me and from attempts to “convert� me to their newfound beliefs).

[olavisjo]

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.

That is silly, why would you expect a map of the ocean to be useful in a city? But honestly I have trusted in Gods navigation system for many years and it has never steered me wrong.

How do you know?

Okay, if I have been fooled, it has been done so well that to this day I have not discovered it. But I will say that I have found what I want, so if it is good, bad or indiferent it does not matter, it is still what I want. It is like you can't defraud me because I do not have anything I would not be willing to give to you if you really want it bad enough to try and get it from me by fraud.

Although it is a rare event to see someone convert because of a good argument, that is just not the way it happens as Brian Holtz has observed.

Thus religion is irrational.

Yes, I would have to agree with you there.
Some things are irrational but we do them anyway, like love, love is so irrational that it should be categorized as a mental illness.
You can give a man a hundred good arguments for God and get no results, but when the man gets a small blood clot stuck in his brain and a limb becomes limp and his speech becomes slurred, all of a sudden becoming right with God does not seem like such a bad idea.

[bernee51]

Although it is a rare event to see someone convert because of a good argument, that is just not the way it happens as Brian Holtz has observed.

Thus religion is irrational.

Yes, I would have to agree with you there.
Some things are irrational but we do them anyway, like love, love is so irrational that it should be categorized as a mental illness.
You can give a man a hundred good arguments for God and get no results, but when the man gets a small blood clot stuck in his brain and a limb becomes limp and his speech becomes slurred, all of a sudden becoming right with God does not seem like such a bad idea.

Are you claiming that there are no 'atheists in foxholes'?