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

[Flail]

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

More specifically it seems that theists, including EduChris, selfishly focus their 'hope' on forgiveness of sin and salvation from death as primary motives for belief without evidence. Sin forgiveness is what drives Christian faith despite the illogic in believing that God impregnated a teenager then faked His death in order that a select few of us wouldn't suffer the depths of Hell for eternity. Despite many modern theists who claim this isn't a necessary part of their faith, I think they hedge their bets by maintaining membership with benefits.

[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

More specifically it seems that theists, including EduChris, selfishly focus their 'hope' on forgiveness of sin and salvation from death as primary motives for belief without evidence. Sin forgiveness is what drives Christian faith despite the illogic in believing that God impregnated a teenager then faked His death in order that a select few of us wouldn't suffer the depths of Hell for eternity. Despite many modern theists who claim this isn't a necessary part of their faith, I think they hedge their bets by maintaining membership with benefits.

I agree with your points in general but, in EduChris' defence, he has described what he means by hope and it is rather different from the generic case you present.

Argenta

[Flail]

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

More specifically it seems that theists, including EduChris, selfishly focus their 'hope' on forgiveness of sin and salvation from death as primary motives for belief without evidence. Sin forgiveness is what drives Christian faith despite the illogic in believing that God impregnated a teenager then faked His death in order that a select few of us wouldn't suffer the depths of Hell for eternity. Despite many modern theists who claim this isn't a necessary part of their faith, I think they hedge their bets by maintaining membership with benefits.

I agree with your points in general but, in EduChris' defence, he has described what he means by hope and it is rather different from the generic case you present.

Argenta

That is my further point. While many theists proclaim a more modern, philosophical theism apart from and perhaps beyond fundamentalism, they maintain their 'Christian membership', as if hedging their bets just in case Jesus is the redeemer. This appears to me a disingenuous attempt to have it both ways.

[mgb]

I am not convinced by the argument that theists are self-deluded and looking for emotional comfort in their belief system. It is theists themselves who understand the importance of self-knowledge and exhort us to "Know thyself". Many of the more well known theists, from Kahlil Gibran to Agustine to (in modern times) Keith Ward exhibit great lucidity and mental courage in their estimation of things. One could as easily say that atheists are seeking some kind of easy way in their world view.

[Goat]

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.

And perhaps the components that formed the universe always existed, and merely changed state to come into the condition we currently call 'the universe'. Now, the thing pure abstractions, they don't empirically exist. Sometimes they can be made into a 'map' of what we observe in a symbolic way, but the map is not the territory.

[mgb]

There is the famous story about Leonhard Euler who said-

(a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists.

The idea here is that the sublime is apparent in mathematics. My argument is that if mathematics preceeds the physical universe or the physical universe is somehow compliant with mathematical truth then where does this mathematical truth, being abstract, exist? Abstraction can only exist in a mind and in this example, God's mind.

The physicist Paul Dirac, when working with Einstein's equations understood that there were two solutions, a positive and negative solution* to the equations. He surmised that a negative version of the electron must exist and said that this might be a proton. This was disproved but in due course the negative electron showed up in experiments as if to dutifully fulfill the negative root to Einstein's equation. This is an example of matter complying with mathematical prediction as if mathematics dictates what matter should be and do. This is what I mean by physicality being an analogue of deeper mathematical truth.

*E = +mc^2 and E = -mc^2

[Argenta]

Reading through EduChris’ posts a common theme emerges. It seems to be his position that:

1. God does not provide humans with evidence for its existence.
2. Modern epistemology requires evidence
3. Therefore, we cannot use modern epistemology to determine whether god exists.

His alternative approach is to accept axiomatically that god exists (justified in his view because this leads to greater hope for mankind than to deny that god exists) and then to “test� the axiom by living as though god does exist. Evidence gathered in this way will either confirm or disconfirm the axiom.

EduChris, would you agree or correct me please? Once we are clear on your position we can explore how reliable an approach this might be.


Argenta

[LiamOS]

It's still entirely arguable that mathematics doesn't and can never fully model reality.

[Argenta]

... 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.

Thanks for this mgb.

You too support my OP but I would be interested to explore this further with you. Are you willing to discuss this in more detail?

Argenta

[Goat]

There is the famous story about Leonhard Euler who said-

(a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists.

The idea here is that the sublime is apparent in mathematics. My argument is that if mathematics preceeds the physical universe or the physical universe is somehow compliant with mathematical truth then where does this mathematical truth, being abstract, exist? Abstraction can only exist in a mind and in this example, God's mind.

The physicist Paul Dirac, when working with Einstein's equations understood that there were two solutions, a positive and negative solution* to the equations. He surmised that a negative version of the electron must exist and said that this might be a proton. This was disproved but in due course the negative electron showed up in experiments as if to dutifully fulfill the negative root to Einstein's equation. This is an example of matter complying with mathematical prediction as if mathematics dictates what matter should be and do. This is what I mean by physicality being an analogue of deeper mathematical truth.

*E = +mc^2 and E = -mc^2

Can you show that this is anything more than 'argument from personal belief'? Does the concept of 'Deeper mathematical truth' have any meaning beyond the conceptual? Math is a tool, and can be very good at describing the empirical world, but only if the initial assumptions are accurately described and match the empirical world.

Can you show these 'deeper mathematical truths' exist in anything beyond the mind of man?